Executive Summary

When Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 2000, it introduced a new concept called “voluntary suspension” of benefits, allowing those who had already started Social Security benefits to stop their payments and earn delayed retirement credits. In the process, however, the new voluntary suspension rules unleashed several additional Social Security claiming strategies, including various “claim now, claim more later” tactics involved File-and-Suspend and Restricted Applications for spousal benefits.

And under this week’s budget legislation, Congress has decided to close these perceived “loopholes” in the Social Security rules. By extending the rules for deemed application, it will no longer be possible to file a restricted application for just spousal benefits. And with an extension of the “suspension” rules that stipulate suspending an individual’s benefits will also suspend any benefits to other people based on the same earnings record, Congress has killed off the various “File and Suspend” strategies to allow spousal and dependent benefits to be paid while still earning delayed retirement credits.

Perhaps most notable for the new Social Security crackdown, though, is the effective date for the rules. While the new limits to Restricted Application will not apply to anyone who is already age 62 or older in 2015, the new crackdown may suspend current spousal or dependent benefits in 6 months for those who are only receiving those benefits thanks to File-and-Suspend! will kick in 6 months from now (thanks to a recent amendment to the original legislation), grandfathering anyone currently going through file-and-suspend but limiting anyone who tries to suspend benefits thereafter. In other words, those who already engaged in the File-and-Suspend strategy may find it terminated mid-stream, Beyond that point, anyone who suspends will find that no benefits will be payable until the individual who suspended chooses to reinstate benefits (either to restart them now, or finish waiting until age 70).

(Michael’s Note: This article was updated at 5:03PM EST on Wednesday with additional information as the House adopted an amendment to the original rules, specifically pertaining to grandfathering certain file-and-suspend provisions. Sections of this article no longer applicable due to the new amendment are noted as strikethrough.)

(Michael’s Note: This article was further updated at 10:21PM EST on Thursday with additional information about a subsequent Senate amendment clarifying the effective date for ending File-and-Suspend, and clarification about the ability to reinstate prior suspended benefits.)

(Michael’s Note: This article was further updated at 11:36PM EST on Monday November 2nd to reflect today’s passage of the H.R. 1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. If I’m counting days correctly, that means the effective date for the new file-and-suspend provisions will kick on after April 30, 2016.)

While the original purpose of these “voluntary suspension” rules were simply to allow those who had already claimed Social Security benefits to cease receiving benefits and earn delayed retirement credits, a secondary strategy emerged soon thereafter – retired couples could choose to file for benefits at full retirement and then immediately suspend. The reason: by filling for benefits, a spouse or even dependent children could become eligible for their benefits, and by suspending the primary worker could still not receive benefits and earn delayed retirement credits. This was far more appealing than the prior alternative, where if the primary worker wanted to earn delayed retirement credits by waiting until age 70, all related benefits were held hostage until that time as well.

A related strategy under these new voluntary suspension rules for couples was to file for benefits at full retirement age (FRA) – both retirement and spousal benefits – but then immediately suspend the retirement benefit and only receive the spousal benefit instead. The effective result was that a spouse could choose to claim “just” a spousal benefit from FRA until age 70, and then reactivate and switch back to the original retirement benefit. In the subsequent years, the Social Security Administration even expedited the process by formalizing the rules to “restrict the scope of their Social Security application” (or “file a restricted application” for short) to receive just spousal benefits and not individual retirement benefits.

While these File-and-Suspend and Restricted Application strategies were entirely legal and permissible under the Social Security rules as a part of the new voluntary suspension rules under the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it was not entirely clear that Congress truly intended to make such “claim now, claim more later” strategies so popular for married couples. Within a decade, the Center for Retirement Research was estimating that the availability of these strategies could “cost” the Social Security Administration as much as $9.5B in additional benefits being paid out every year (if everyone did it), with a slight skew towards those at higher income levels (46% of the additional benefits being paid out to the top two wealth quintiles), and the biggest additional benefits going to households that otherwise had similar earnings between spouses.

Under the standard rules for Social Security benefits, anyone who applies for an early (i.e., “reduced”) retirement benefit or spousal benefit is “deemed” to have applied for any/all eligible benefits. As a result, early retirees have always been required to file for and claim all benefits they are eligible for, and since it wasn’t possible to voluntarily suspend retirement benefits before full retirement age, the claimant would be “stuck” claiming all benefits (which in practice means simply getting a benefit check for whichever was greater, individual or spousal benefits).

With the new rules under Section 831 of the Bipartisan Budget Act, Section 202(r)(1) of the Social Security Act is altered to expand the deemed application rules from applying only to early benefits to instead applying to all benefits regardless of age.

Thus, anyone who is eligible for a wife’s or husband’s spousal benefit is deemed to have filed for their old-age retirement benefit as well, and similarly anyone who is eligible for a retirement benefit is deemed to have filed for any spousal benefits to which he/she is entitled.

The end result is that it will no longer be feasible to file a restricted application, as any retiree who files for one benefit (retirement) is presumed to and deemed to have filed for the other (spousal) benefit as well – regardless of whether it was/is an early benefit or at full retirement age. (On the other hand, it appears that Social Security survivor benefits will still be eligible for claiming separate from retirement benefits, allowing widows/widowers to still optimize the timing of when to start each.)

Effective Date For Elimination Of Restricted Application

Notably, though, the new rules for restricted application applies only to those who attain age 62 in any calendar year after 2015. Thus, today’s retirees who are at FRA (or simply who are already at least age 62 in 2015, born in 1953 or earlier) will still be able to utilize a restricted application. Only future retirees – those who turn 62 in 2016 or later, which means those who would have been planning to engage in a restricted application in 2020 or later – will lose access to the Restricted Application claiming strategy. Or viewed another way, anyone born in 1953 or earlier is “grandfathered” and will still be able to engage in Restricted Application in the future (since they remain eligible based on birth year, even if they don’t turn age 66 until 2019), while anyone born in 1954 or later will never be eligible to do a Restricted Application.

Suspending All Benefits Under File And Suspend

To further limit some of the perceived “loophole” abuses under voluntary suspension claiming strategies, the Bipartisan Budget Act also includes a new Social Security Act subsection 202(z), which stipulates that if an individual chooses to suspend benefits, then:

1) All benefits payable to that individual will be suspended, based on both his/her own earnings record (i.e., retirement benefits) and also based on any other person’s earnings record (i.e., spousal benefits).

2) No other individual will be eligible for benefits based on the earnings record of the person who voluntarily suspends benefits.

The first prong of these new rules puts yet another nail in the coffin for any type of restricted application strategy, as not only will the deemed application rules require that if an individual is eligible for one benefit then both must be claimed, but for those who suspend a benefit, both must be suspended.

The second provision, however, effectively kills all of the File-and-Suspend strategies as well. After all, the whole point of the file and suspend strategy was that if one person (e.g., the husband) files and suspends benefits at full retirement age, he can earn delayed retirement credits while making his wife eligible for spousal benefits. Yet under these new rules, when the husband suspends, it suspends not only his benefits, but all benefits payable based on his earnings record, which means he would no longer be able to trigger spousal benefits either (because his wife’s spousal benefit is based on his earnings, which are no longer considered).

And notably, because the new rule applies to any other individual receiving benefits based on the primary worker’s earnings record, a voluntary suspension of benefits would trigger a suspension of the individual’s own retirement benefits, and any spousal benefits he/she is eligible for, and anyone else’s spousal benefits that person was eligible for, and even any dependent benefits being paid based on that parent’s/worker’s earnings record!

(In point of fact, the new suspension provision is so broad, it may even unintentionally limit access to an ex-spouse’s divorced spouse benefits if the primary worker spouse voluntarily suspends, although this was likely not intended and will hopefully be fixed before the effective date for the new rules!)

Given the legislation was signed into law on November 2nd, 2015, this means the 180 day period will close on April 30th of 2016, after which the grace/grandfathering period is over, and any filing of voluntary suspension will trigger the new rules. Thus for those who are not FRA by next April 30th, file-and-suspend will effectively be “off the table” (and won’t remain open based on birth year the way Restricted Application will be).

Those who are already eligible (or will become eligible very soon) may wish to be even more proactive about engaging in the File-and-Suspend strategy while possible. And anyone who won’t even reach the full retirement age of 66 until after the effective date will simply be “out of luck” for the file-and-suspend strategy. any benefits being paid in relation to an individual who suspended his/her own benefits may no longer payable. Which means couples currently receiving a spousal benefit under File-and-Suspend may find their checks cease once the effective date has passed!

Of course, the maximum benefit that a spouse could claim under File and Suspend was limited to 50% of a worker’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), which would be 50% x $2,787.80 = $1,393.90/month, or about $16,700 per year. And at the most, the strategy would only unlock four years’ worth of benefits (from when the retiree reached full retirement age at 66, until age 70 when benefits would have started anyway). Nonetheless, the new rules could cut off as much as about $67,000 of benefits over a 4-year time window for those who planned to engage in File-and-Suspend and as much as 3.5 years of benefits for those who were already receiving File-and-Suspend-based benefits (if the Social Security Administration promptly enforces an effective date in 6 months).

Notwithstanding all the new changes to the Social Security rules to limit the File-and-Suspend and Restricted Application claiming strategies that were created when the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act was passed in 2000, the original rule allowing for voluntary suspension of an individual’s retirement benefits remains in place.

Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether this budget legislation will be passed into law in current form, although the reports out over the past 24 hours indicate that both the White House and Congressional leaders are backing the compromise and that it will pass later this week. Which will immediately start the clock on the end of restricted application for anyone not already age 62 by the end of this year, and means that even with a final amendment to grandfather current file-and-suspend beneficiaries, anyone planning to do so in the future may have just 6 months to become eligible and get it done, or be out of luck! any spouses receiving spousal benefits under file-and-suspend may find those spousal checks terminated next spring (at least until the couple ends any voluntary suspensions of benefits!).

So what do you think? How will this impact the Social Security planning discussions you have with clients? Do you have any clients whose plans will be ‘derailed’ by the change in rules going forward? How many of your clients had planned to file-and-suspend but it would have been more than 6 months out, and now they’ll no longer be eligible? currently receive Social Security benefits under a File-and-Suspend strategy who will find it curtailed in 6 months? Please share your thoughts in the comments below!

Related

Sounds like the beginning of Social Security getting more solvent. Further means testing can’t be far behind. The benefits becoming less and less reliable and why retirees might want to file early and buy a QLAC at 80 to plan for longevity. I think most people would rather trust an insurance company rather than the federal government.

BenjaminBrandt

SS is still the best annuity money can buy, and even better when you defer. Early claiming should be needs-based, not for anyone that can afford to wait.

james mcglynn

So I should forego $185376 before 70 and wait till 80 to have a break-even recovery? Yes after 80 I will need a QLAC but with the politicization of Social Security and comments like “not for anyone that can afford to wait” as opposed to what the law is which scares those of us forced to pay for 35+ years who just want some payback.

And if you want to look at the history of politicization of Social Security, our ways of handling this are remarkably consistent – we “always” make changes that impact future retirees, and don’t make cuts to current beneficiaries. So the odds that as an 80-year-old in a decade or two you face a benefit cut is incredibly low – and again, EVEN IF THAT HAPPENS it still has a better implied return that available bonds today…
– Michael

Actually QLAC payments are DRASTICALLY worse than Social Security benefits. Even if we let the trust fund spend down to $0 and had to cut benefits by 25% for the rest of the century, delaying Social Security STILL beats a QLAC. I covered this in depth in my newsletter issue of The Kitces Report on QLAC contracts last year.
– Michael

james mcglynn

Thanks for your reply. But your article compares buying a SPIA at 70 NOT purchasing a QLAC say at age 56-62 and having it kick-in at 80 which: lets you spend $ from 62-70 versus buying a SPIA: removes the guesswork from what will Congress do to my payments; covers longevity risk as well as Social Security as the payments start at the cross-over point-age 80 and pay for life. Simply I don’t trust future politicians NOT to means test or limit payments and prefer not to wait till age 70 to get any $ back from 35 years of forced payments.

If you’ve already made your own conclusion based on your personal views that Social Security is going to zero, then no amount of data or analysis is going to be relevant.

james mcglynn

Well I have a CFA and RICP so am not just listening to doomsayers on Social Security I am looking at actual QLAC’s and actual guaranteed Social Security payments and I never mentioned that Social Security was going to ZERO-nor implied it- but was susceptible to not being received due to “means”testing. (Which is why I will be converting my IRA’s to Roth). In addition your charts and graphs do NOT explain what seniors will be living on from 62-70 and ONLY look at the Social Security returns as if they are an investment and don’t discount the time value of money at 62 versus the value at 80-if one survives.

James,
If you’re a CFA, feel free to run your own IRR comparisons. Then assume we completely fail to fix Social Security, cut it by 25% in 2033, and re-run the IRRs. You’ll find delaying Social Security is STILL better.

As for where the dollars come from in age 62-70, it’s the same issue whether you put your money in a QLAC so you can’t spend it during that time, or you spend it so you can delay Social Security during that time. Both scenarios are captured by doing an IRR analysis, as shown in the article, which implicit adjusts for the time value of money over the time horizon.

That aside, you may want to do some further research on the Social Security proposals and prospective paths for means testing. The version you seem to be implying is not being proposed by ANYONE, Democrats OR Republicans. The reality is that the system is ALREADY means-tested, in the form of the Social Security bend points used to calculate PIA in the first place, and that any/every proposal to accentuate the means-testing of Social Security would simply raise the wage base on earnings, apply a new bend point (which implicitly makes the system more means tested), and only impacts the future pay-in of future earnings and does not cause anyone’s currently-earned benefits to be reduced. Which, once again, simply reinforces the analyses I already published…

The idea that high-income earners would simply have their benefits taken away is not currently proposed by anyone, and actually doesn’t generate enough dollars to ‘fix’ the system anyway, which is why it’s been a dead-on-arrival proposal all along.
– Michael

james mcglynn

Michael

Thanks for your reply.I am assuming an IRA of $500000 , investing $50000 at 56 in a QLAC versus spending down $184000 from the IRA before 70. And I listen to the Republicans like Chris Christie during debates say Social Security shouldn’t be for those who don’t need it I disagree there. The only real debate for a single filer is will you live past 80 as far as I can see and from what I hear at 80 there is nothing left to spend on but medicine. Thanks again.

Earl_Wutt

Very confusing … perhaps someone can help clarify. Here’s an example: couple, ages 65 and 63 +10 months (meets the age 62 by 2015 criteria). The older spouse claims and begins receiving benefits at age 66 can the younger spouse still claim restricted, spousal benefits at age 66 and delay until 70 to claim higher benefit?

Earl – that was exactly my concern. This bit of change doesn’t seem to affect that strategy. Yet.

Cary Cates

The short answer is yes, the younger spouse can still file a restricted application. The six month rule doesn’t apply to them because the older spouse IS receiving benefits. Of course, this goes away in a few years. – All according to Kitces.

Thanks so much, Michael!!

ChickenLittle

Clarification, on “this goes away in a few years”. By my back of the envelope calculations, there will still be individuals who are receiving “restricted applications” 8 years and 2 months from now. Correct?

No impact. They’re both already age 62 or older, so Restricted Application remains on the table.

Think of it this way: if you were born in 1953 or earlier, all Restricted Application rules will continue to apply to you, no matter when you do it in the future.

If you were born in 1954 or later, there is no more Restricted Application, ever.

And either way, File-and-Suspend strategies are dead in 6 months.
– Michael

Andrew Sivertsen

Michael,

Can you clarify by what you mean when you say File/Suspend is dead in 6 months? Does that mean anyone who has already Filed and Suspended will be revoked, or that anyone who has Filed and Suspended by 6/30/16 will be grand fathered in?

The original legislation would have killed payments of those who ALREADY suspended, starting in 6 months.

It got amended today. In the amended version, the crackdown will only apply if you DO the suspension (i.e., start/file it) more than 6 months from now. If you already suspended, you’re fine. If you suspend within the next 6 months (if you can), you’re fine.
– Michael

Julie Bray, CFP®

So is there a strategy for a married couple where one earner is over 62 now but not FRA and the spouse is younger than 62 to file and suspend within the next six months to make the spouse eligible for spousal benefits at their FRA? OR because the one earner is 62 in 2015 the file & suspend option will be available to them in four or so years at FRA?

Julie,
No, because File-and-Suspend itself can only be done if you’re at least FRA, and neither of those is FRA in your example.

The spouse who’s over 62 will be able to do a Restricted Application in the future, but only because the other person ACTUALLY FILES for benefits (not related to File-and-Suspend which will no longer be available at that time).
– Michael

Note that the bill also eliminates the ability to obtain a lump sum reimbursement of voluntarily suspended benefits if one chooses to unsuspend.

MrWiseOwl

It would appear that the incentive to defer until age 70 has become diminished, meaning more retirees will simply opt for receipt of their full benefits at FRA. The break-even cross over point or age has also been extended farther out into the future. Now what, mid 80’s?
These changes will result in significantly increased pressure on SS payouts in the immediate/near term future.

Philip Moser

“This is significant, because once the new rules are effective, any benefits being paid in relation to an individual who suspended his/her own benefits may no longer payable. Which means couples currently receiving a spousal benefit under File-and-Suspend may find their checks cease once the effective date has passed!” Does this statement apply to couples who have already attained age 62 as well? In other words, does the recent change affect individuals who are already 62 at all?

Daniel Milligan

My understanding from the article is that if they are only receiving the spousal benefit because the other spouse utilized file and suspend, then yes, it affects them even though they are over age 62. The earner would need to, I believe, resume their benefit in order to make spousal and dependents benefits available again.

ChickenLittle

Wording was changed. No longer says benefits payable after 6 months. Now says requests for benefit suspension after 180 days after the date of Legislative enactment.

Daniel Milligan

Hi Michael,
Regarding the potential limitation for ex-spouses… the ex-spouse benefit was never contingent upon the ex-spouse actually filing for a benefit (per my understanding). They just have to have reached that age of 62 for the ex-spouse to be able to claim off of them, no filing required. So the ex-wife (for instance) who is trying to get benefits off of the ex-husbands record doesn’t have to wait until he files, she just has to wait until he’s 62. So I would think that, given the verbiage, that shouldn’t be affected.
But I had a question to clarify about who this affects. So anyone who is not 62 by the end of 2015, going forward, will always be filing for any benefits available, whatever is greater. If anyone is currently receiving spousal or dependents benefits solely due to the earner having utilized the file and suspend strategy, then those benefits could be cut off in 6 months?
We have, for instance, a married couple. Husband and wife both have the maximum benefits on their own work records, both over FRA. The husband retired. The wife filed and suspended. Husband gets spousal benefit. So unless the wife decides to go ahead and just resume her benefit, the husband will lose his spousal. Am I getting that right?
I love your articles. Keep it up!

Ted Perry

“A voluntary suspension will also remain relevant in other limited scenarios, such as individuals (not couples) who wish to engage in the strategy simply so that they have the option of changing their mind and reinstating benefits between full retirement age and age 70 (which allows them to get all of their benefits paid retroactively back to full retirement age if they have a change in health and decide it wasn’t valuable to delay after all).”

As far as I can tell, the provision in the proposed legislation only limits retroactive benefits (which were actually already limited here, this just ‘clarifies’ it), not the process for reinstatement.

Though I’ll try to dig in further to clarify.
– Michael

Mike Piper

A Boglehead forum member pointed me toward (z)(1)(A)(ii). It looks to me that this is what eliminates the ability for retroactive unsuspension. It says that suspension ends “with the earlier of the month following the month in which a request by the individual for a resumption of such benefits is so received or the month following
the month in which the individual attains the age of 70.”

Mike,
I’m aware of the (z)(1)(A)(ii) provision. It references Social Security Act section 202(j)(4)(B)(iii) which limits “retroactive benefits… to which an individual becomes entitled for a month prior to the month in which the applications is filed.”

When you file and suspend at 66, you filed at 66. Requesting a reinstatement several years later is NOT a retroactive filing of benefits, because you are NOT asking for benefits to be paid back PRIOR to age 66. You’re requesting a reinstatement of benefits that were due AFTER you filed (but weren’t paid due to suspension).

So I don’t see how the (z)(1)(A)(ii) provision can limit the reinstatement of benefits payable AFTER you filed (and suspended); it only limits retroactive payment of benefits that go back PRIOR to when you filed.

So for instance:
Scenario #1: I suspend at 66. I wait until 69. I get bad news and decide I want to reinstate. I request a reinstatement of benefits back to age 66. They send me 3 years of checks.
Scenario #2: I suspend at 66. I wait until 69. I change my mind and request retroactive benefits payable back to age 68 ½ (going back 6 months).

Scenario #2 is retroactive benefits and NOT permitted under the new law.

Scenario #1 is a reinstatement of prior benefits and does still appear to be permitted (because the new law only restricts
retroactive elections, not reinstatement of a prior already-existing election).

– Michael

Mike Piper

Michael,

Thank you for the reply.

We’re talking about different provisions. (z)(3)(A) is the one that limits retroactive benefits relating to (j)(4)(B)(iii).

Let me dig further, but I think you may be right. I was eyeing the “crackdown” on retroactive benefits (which I don’t think will accomplish the goal), but you make a good point that the limited scope of (z)(1)(A)(ii) to only resume in the next/following month, or age 70, may have killed this. The potential to reinstatement in a PRIOR month is notably absent from (z)(1)(A)(ii)…

But then again, I don’t think there was a prior law permitting prior month reinstatement either. It was an interpretation by SSA. But then again, the new (z)(1)(A)(ii) so specifically does NOT allow for a prior month, that it may have killed the SSA’s interpretation and FORCE them to only allow in a subsequent month, or age 70…
– Michael

Mike Piper

Michael,

You wrote, “But then again, I don’t think there was a prior law permitting prior month reinstatement either. It was an interpretation by SSA. But then again, the new (z)(1)(A)(ii) so specifically does NOT allow for a prior month, that it may have killed the SSA’s interpretation and FORCE them to only allow in a subsequent month, or age 70…”

That’s precisely where I am with it at this point.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and reply. It gives me an additional degree of confidence to see that we’re on the same page.

Mike,
As a quick follow-up, I would note that I suspect the intent of the new provision may have been to prevent this strategy of benefits reinstatement to get a ‘retroactive’ lump sum.

I’m just not sure this particular version of the new rule, limiting retroactive benefits but not reinstatement itself, will accomplish it. Which may simply mean it’s a matter of time before its patched/amended to do so. :/
– Michael

When I went to SS to file & suspend, after getting incorrect info from the woman at the counter that “you can’t do that”, she added her own commentary that “you rich people are making SS go bankrupt” after her supervisor said I could file & suspend.

I’m not rich but I can manage my expenses while I file and suspend.

Filing and suspending and other strategies to maximize probable SS benefits isn’t “cheating” anymore than using deductions to legally minimize taxes but I could see that the Obama admin had declared war on SS recipients who weren’t living hand to mouth with SS payments. First it was the 12 month restriction on paying back after taking SS early at age 62, then using “hold harmless” rule to jack up Medicare for those who file& suspend and now this broader attack on suspenders.

This is just a first pass at means testing SS, eventually SS, which we all paid for, will be limited to the poor and “disabled”.

I’m sure there will be shock and amazement when when SS cash flow goes bad when the suspenders get squeezed back into drawing their benefits.

Constitution

I ran into a similar attitude from a Social Security representative in that she tried to tell me that I did not need to file for spousal benefit off my wife’s Social Security, i.e. she thought we had enough money without doing so. When I asked why wouldn’t I file when it is the law and I am entitled to the benefits and she responded that she “guessed we would just have to disagree on that point”!

NativeTxn

So here’s a scenario: couple is retired, age 66 (Wife) and 67 (Husband) – both are FRA. Wife started taking her benefits at age 66 (FRA) and the husband filed a restricted application only for spousal benefits at that time so that the benefits on his earnings would continue to grow.

Would the spousal benefits here be affected since it was not a file-and-suspend strategy, but rather a file and then the spouse files a restricted application?

ChickenLittle

Article says the legislative changes on filing a restricted benefits only applies to those who turn 62 in 2016 or later.

Michael H Baker,CFP®

According to the proposed new rules, he’s over age 62 in 2015. Therefore, he won’t be impacted by the changes to filing a restricted application.

It was only a matter of time, imho, before this legal, but unforeseen/unintended way of gaming the system was corrected/eliminated. Personally, I’m glad they’ve finally gotten around to it because it’s not fair to the younger generations to have to give even more to the selfish baby-boom generation due to some crafty manipulation of a social welfare program.

lcr999

It is not gaming the system. It is actually just being fair. The gaming of the system is the whole concept of spousal benefits. Why should a spouse who has paid nothing in get anything. Alternatively, why should a spouse who worked not get more than a spouse that did not work, or a spouse who worked effectively lose access to her spousal benefit

Kimberly Bridges

You are forgetting that the traditional economic model of the household was a breadwinner spouse and a homemaker spouse. That is the economic model that was promoted as being the most efficient and effective. Clearly, the model is changing today; but, for those who followed it for 30 or more years, the spousal benefit is fair pay for a life spent working without receiving wages.

lcr999

I am not forgetting. The “traditional” model was obsolete 50 years ago. But even in the traditional model it made no sense. Working without wages does not contribute to the system. If you are doing that, then just call it what it is and call it welfare for non-working spouses. Earned benefits make sense. Survivor benefits make sense. Extra benefits for a non working spouse makes no sense in a retirement program. Never did.

Danielle

It depends on whether you consider Social Security a reward for being a good worker bee, or whether you believe there’s any societal responsibility to ensure that elderly people can have a decent standard of living. In my divorce work I still see that the spouse who dedicated herself to raising the kids is heavily penalized over the spouse who worked and farmed the kids off to the nanny to raise. And Social Security is already so pathetic compared to what it actually takes to live when you’re elderly that we should all be considering how to raise benefits to the level of a decent retirement, as Social Security was intended to be, and which is offered by every other Western democracy, not finding ways to screw the elderly.

lcr999

It is a retirement based on your work record. If you have no paid work, then you should have no paid benefit. We already have programs to help non-workers survive, the are called welfare. As funding for a “welfare program”, the flat payroll tax is very regressive. And sorry, why should an old person who hasnt worked be entitled to more than a young person who hasnt worked. Frankly most retirees would revolt at the thought that their SS is really welfare.

And as far as divorcees are concerned, that is what divorce settlements are for.

Steve Condie

Actually social security is neither “a retirement” nor welfare. It’s “insurance” which covers old age, survivors and people who become disabled before reaching retirement age. Says so right in the formal name. Your opinion of who should received the benefit of the insurance is simply your opinion.

John Richards

Well, if you want to get technical, S.S. is a wealth transfer tax structured to mimic an annuity policy (insurance). The original intent of SS was to reduce poverty among the elderly. The precise impacts are for us to decide on. As a program, SS has been very successful in achieving it’s aim; poverty among the elderly has declined from over 60% to below 20%.

andi

I am 55 and on SS Disability. Will the new legislation impact me? My husband is 66 and draws his full Social Security. I do not get spousal payments.

John Richards

andi, I simply am not qualified to provide a definite answer to your question. The focus of the new legislation would not appear to impact people in your situation, so I would guess that you should not see any changes, but….there is an old statement that ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.

It would be wise to get professional help. I’d suggest a discussion with a fee-only financial/retirement expert who specializes in those with disabilities. Not only could they confirm the answer to your question, but there may be other SS benefits you were not aware of, now or in the future.

Best of luck to you.

Pat

SS was never intended to be the sole source of income for retirees.

FoolsRushLandHannityIn

That may be, but when S.S. was last significally modified in 1983, people still worked for companies who provided defined benefit plans. Now YOYO, and for many people putting 10%-15% per year away for retirement would result in the inability to pay for basic necessities.

Pat

Having grown up in a mill town, I am all too familiar with the decline in employer-provided pensions. But even at their peak, fewer than half of private-sector workers in the US were covered by such pensions. If we are going to change SS from a social-insurance program into welfare because of fundamental changes in our economy, we need to look at that very openly and deliberately.

Iluvpoodles

Yeah that may be but a lot of us also didn’t plan on our jobs being shipped overseas!

Gaye Dar

In Canada their retirement benefits are so far inferior to U.S. Social Security, to be a joke. I did not appreciate as much, my U.S. S.S. benefits until I saw what my Canadian partner was getting…so I question the “other Western democracy” statement.(However, the free health care here, is a god send)

Iluvpoodles

That “selfish baby boom generation?” Really! It’s my understanding that my generation has been paying DOUBLE into social security to pay for our parents retirement AND our own!

Can anyone answer this scenario question for me? My husband is 80 yrs. old and has been receiving his full benefits since he was 65. I am 63 and will not retire till the age of 66 in 2018. I planned on receiving the amount of half his benefit until I reach the age of 70. Will that be completely taken off the table for me now?

I’m a little confused. As it stands now, is the 6-month timetable related to the actual filing for spousal benefits or is it related to being age 62 within 6 months of the legislation being enacted? Your article implies that filing a restricted application for spousal benefits is off the table in 6 months of the legislation being enacted.

Please help me out with this scenario: Husband is age 67, began receiving SS at age 62. Wife will have the higher PIA, turns 65 in Nov 2015. Husband suspended his SS effective April 2015 (no check received in May 2015). Planned to resume receiving SS after 10 months (as recommended by a computer analysis), ie, resume SS effective February (1st check received in March 2016). Wife would apply for spouse only SS benefits at age 66 in Nov 2016 and earn delayed credits until age 70 in Nov 2020. In order to avoid the increase in Medicare Part B premium from $104.90 to $120 + $3 loan repayment, should the husband reinstate his suspended benefits effective December in order to have the Medicare Part B premium deducted from his SS check so that he would qualify for “hold harmless”? That would cut his suspension from the recommended 10 months to only 7 months. It may not seem like it would be worth worrying about an increase of $18.10/mo. However, the extra $3 per month may have to be paid for years until the “loan” is repaid. Assuming he does reinstate effective November, could he suspend again effective January 2016 for 3 months to finish out the recommended 10 month suspension? During that 3 month suspension, he would have to pay the Part B premium directly to Medicare. Does anyone know if Medicare would continue to bill him the $104.90 rate or would they be able to increase his rate to the new rate (proposed to be $120 + $3)? If Medicare would not be permitted to raise his rate, then it looks like it would be wise to reinstate and then suspend again for 3 months and then reinstate again effective April 2016. That would accomplish the original 10 month suspension and lock in the lower Medicare Part B premium. In regard to the wife, should she stick to the original plan and wait until FRA of 66 in Nov 2016 to apply for spouse only SS benefits or should she file for spouse only SS benefits at age 65 (1 year before FRA) and receive spouse only benefits for 5 years instead of 4 years at the 45.x% instead of 50% level in order to qualify for “hold harmless” and thus avoid the higher Medicare Part B premium. However, if the husband suspends effective January through March 2016, would the wife be able to receive spouse only benefits off his account during those 3 months in light of these new limitations? Per phone call to SSA, the wife’s benefits at age 70 off her own account would not be reduced because she applied for spouse only benefits off her husband’s account one year before she reached FRA. Is that correct? SSA stated that both the husband and wife would have to do this by Friday of this week. Both the husband and wife have already paid the Part B premium to Medicare for November and December and January. SSA or Medicare (not sure which) said that this would not be refunded but they would not be charged a premium in a future month. Could this potentially cause both of them to fall outside of the “hold harmless” group simply due to processing issues?

David Macaulay

From a pure political point of view, past attempts to “fix” social security do not even get a chance to be discussed. Now it can be said that the politicians “messed with your social security” behind closed doors and from what I can tell, the financial planning community had no input.

jim

you are correct. it also saddens me that aarp never, ever weighed in on this and even now has just a short blurb on their web site. i usually looked to them to champion old folks’ interests.

What happens when spouses are on opposite sides of the age 62 restriction?
Husband over 62 [64], higher earner
Wife under 62 [61]

When husband is 66 can he claim spousal benefit and restrict his to 70, given she starts hers at 63, reduced from FRA by 20%?

Daniel Milligan

I’m curious about this as well. If we are to take this all literally, and apply it literally then I’d think that… the husband can’t utilize file and suspend because he’s not going to be FRA within the next 6 months, so that’s out the window. He COULD file a restricted application, IF his wife files for her benefit (once he’s FRA, and once she has filed for her benefits and continues to receive them). However, it would seem to me that the wife, on the other hand, would be unable to file a restricted application when she’s FRA. She just doesn’t have that capability due to her age. I would think that’s how it would work unless they allow the younger spouse to grandfather in as well, but part of me doubts it.

Pat

In addition to the fact that these changes were done outside of a public discussion/debate on SS reform, it bugs me that couples where one spouse was already drawing benefits were not grandfathered in even if the other spouse was born in 1954 or later.

My husband will turn 66 in November. He did apply for Social Security and should get it the month of November and December 2015. I started taking SS in Sept 2015 when I turned 65. He will retire December 31st. He and I are under his work insurance until Dec 31. We will be subject to IRMAA. The question is should we apply for Medicare B in December or January? We plan to file SSA 44 for life changing events due to retirement.

davidrmoran

Sorry to ask surely duplicate dumb question, but we are 68.5yo m3 and 66.5yo wife and already did the apply and delay (technical terms for file and suspend) — meaning wife gets half my benefit and I will get full in 18 months at 70. Or that was the plan and the budgeting. What happens when you are in mid-process like this? Do I have to do something in six months?

It is about time that Congress acted to close this egregious loophole that benefitted the richer people at the expense of the system. The main losers, aside from those who will lose the loophole are the consulting firms showing the 10,833 scenarios in which to increase your payout. FDR is rejoicing in his grave that simplicity is being restored.

For what it’s worth, there’s actually very little evidence that this was actually being used exclusively/primarily by “richer” people. Ironically, even the Social Security Administration didn’t have data to track how many people were doing this. :/

In point of fact, the crackdown on Restricted Application impacts dual-earner households, which arguably is most of the middle class right now (not just a high-income thing).

Though in practice, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that it was being used more by higher-income folks, if only because the average American still didn’t understand these rules and how they work, while advisors working at the higher end of the income spectrum were more likely to proactively advise doing it.

But that means it was only being used primarily by higher-income households because the government communicated the opportunity so poorly to everyone else, not because higher-income households were the only ones who could/would benefit.
– Michael

Nova1979

actually, per the SSA, less than 2% of filers choose to wait beyond FRA at all. Michael, this is great information, by the way, as always.

Doug Babcock

I agree, great information as always. These are not necessarily strategies for the “rich”. In fact, of the clients we have recommended use these strategies, most would be considered “middle class” by net worth standards. Loophole or not, there should have been more discussion on what was happening and at least a more lenient “grandfather” element as we have many who are not too far away from retirement where these strategies play a significant role. Thanks for all your information on this Michael.

Phyllis

Or maybe because they didn’t anticipate so many people who didn’t need the benefits to so greedily jump on the bandwagon.

John Richards

If I pay in for 40 odd years, and already I get a far smaller percentage of what I paid than most everyone else, why wouldn’t I jump on the bandwagon. It’s hardly being greedy when I’m still paying for far more than my guaranteed share. Besides, who the heck are you to judge who is being greedy? Just because I made more money, doesn’t mean I don’t have ongoing responsibilities. I guarantee you the gov’t won’t take care of my special needs child when I’m gone, so yes, I’m going to take every penny I can get to make sure he’s not tossed on the street after I pass away. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Warren Buffet taking SS, if he wants. He earned it. He’ll give it away to charity anyways.

Phyllis

First of all the government will take care of your child when you’re gone…it’s called SSI and/or Medicaid and we as a nation pay for that because I am my brother’s keeper!

Second, when you pay into auto or health or home insurance and you never have a claim, do you think you should have your premiums returned at the end of your life plus interest?! It’s insurance against old age poverty if you don’t have anything else to fall back on. Most people don’t have enough or nothing at all so they “need” it.
Not sure what your point is!

I’m sorry for your difficulties. I pray that everything works out for your child! It can’t be easy!

Blessings to you!

John Richards

SSI and Medicaid, like so much of our world, works much better with an advocate. I place little faith in that approach, though it may be necessary at some point.

However, I believe we disagree on what SS is. Is it a form of welfare, only for the needy? I think we’d both agree in the value of such programs. However, while SS is an anti-poverty program, it’s designed to mimic an annuity, which is a type of insurance product that does return money to you (plus interest). It was always designed to be a supplement to the income of all Americans. The government has already tilted the payments to provide much greater benefits for the most needy. Even the very rich can be quite unwise with their oney… I see SS as an integral part of everyone’s retirement plan, but only a part of it – everyone has to rely on themselves to build savings towards the lifestyle they want. That’s why I don’t see anybody as greedy for taking their SS as promised.

Thank you for your good wishes, best of luck to you.

Art Stewart

It is wrong to say this provision only benefited rich couples. I am currently receiving spousal benefits, following suspension by my wife. Neither of us is rich, by any definition. We both have work histories of 35 years plus (that’s 70 payroll years going into the SS fund), during which time we earned under the FICA payroll limit in all but 4 years ( and in those “high income” years, the best I did was to exceed the FICA max by $10,000). I never viewed this provison as unfair. In fact, I think it helped dual income families such as mine, who paid twice as much into the system, to even up a bit with a single earner whose spouse gets a SS check after paying nothing in.

Watching Out

I never stated that it only benefitted rich couples. There will always be some people who plan well and take advantage of provisions, who may not be “rich”, and you may use your definition of rich.
When you examine the demographics of those receiving benefits, you will find that the it is confined to higher income folks. Even the author of the article acknowledges that there is some evidence – note he said very little, not none.

miamisid

“… that benefitted the richer people at the expense of the system.” Your default assumption [shared by many] assumes that all folks taking advantage of this [now defunct] option were rich. In my case far from it but I did plan carefully so as to take advantage of the law. For planners it was a no brainer that unfortunately is no longer offered.

Phyllis

I have to agree! I’m 58 and divorced and even though it will affect me, I think it’s appalling how many people who already had plenty of other income streams were milking the system at the expense of people who really need it because their low incomes didn’t allow for aggressive investment strategies. Divorced spouses who didn’t go to university due to staying at home have been forced to enter the work force with lower wages and a shorter time span to accumulate benefits while these “entitled” boomers who don’t need it are gouging the system. It IS an insurance benefit for the elderly who do not have enough income to avoid poverty! “Greedy, Rich people need to give it a break! Get over it! I’m going to have to and I probably will have to work until seventy while you’re living on a retirement benefit that’s higher than my working income!

John Richards

You may be able to take spousal benefits vs your own. I believe you have to have been married 10 years. Spousal benefits were designed for cases where one partner sacrificed for the family.

First off, I want to say how impressed I am with this article. You really put tremendous effort into making it relatively easy to understand, compared with the copious amounts of gobbledygook I’ve read thus far! Major kudos to you!!!

I would like to run my scenario by you, if you don’t mind. I have been permanently disabled for some time now (age 59). I am receiving SSD. My husband, when he reached FRA last year, filed what I think would be termed a restricted application. He is 67 and is receiving spousal benefits (50%) based on my SSD and is planning on switching over to his own benefits in about a year. Will this new bill, in its amended state, affect us? Also, what happens when he claims off his own record in a year. Does he then lose the spousal benefit? And, when I get to FRA, what happens given I am on SSD? Thank you so much for any light you can shed.

Because your husband is already over the age of 62, these rules have no effect on his Restricted Application. He is not impacted. Under the standard rules for Social Security, when he switches from spousal to individual retirement benefits, he will get that check instead if it is bigger (not both checks, just whichever is bigger).
– Michael

Debstinydogs

Thank you! Just one question left… When I get to FRA, does my SSD switch over to “regular” SS? Will my benefits then be reduced to 50% of his? I am pretty confused given the whole disabled element.

1. For anyone turning age 62 after 2015, file and suspend as well as restricted applications will never be available.
2. For anyone who is already at least age 62 in 2015, file and suspend will remain available as a viable option to begin within 6 months before the option goes away, but restricted applications will still be available for this cohort going forward.
3. The under age 62 (in 2015) cohort will be fully under the “deemed filing” rules from age 62 to age 70, so that they will not be able to pick and choose which benefit to receive or delay.
4. As of now, we aren’t entirely clear what’s happening with some other benefits such as the retroactive filing (up to 6 months prior), the lump sum “trick” (forgot the proper name), or the impact this might have on divorced spousal benefits?

Daniel,
Yes you’ve got that right, with the caveat at the end:
– Retroactive filing into suspended periods is definitely dead
– The “lump sum trick” is probably dead, as I concur with Mike Piper’s evaluation of the provisions
– Restricted Application definitely applies to divorced spousal benefits. The only question is whether there’s a scenario where a vindictive ex-spouse could SUSPEND benefits just to try to cause the SUSPENSION of an ex-spouse’s spousal benefits (I’m sure that wasn’t intended, and if it is an outcome, will be patched/amended… but it’s still vague right now).

Paul

Michael, so for divorcees who can use a restricted app, is their ability to get benefits now dependent on the ex receiving theirs?

No, still based on just whether the ex is 62. But the divorce spouse’s ability to file for ONLY a spousal benefit is a form of Restricted Application, so no longer available unless the spouse was born in 1953 or earlier.

This is some question about whether an ex-spouse who SUSPENDS could cause the other person’s spousal benefit to become suspended as well. If so, this would be a very unintended consequence, and probably fixed by a future patch/amendment if the Social Security Administration doesn’t have the leeway to resolve the issue directly.
– Michael

Daniel Milligan

Hi Michael,
In response to my original post above, I wanted to clarify something. Our home office came out with a very brief explanation of the changes. One of the things that they SEEMED to be saying, was that anyone who is able to do the file and suspend strategy, has 6 months to utilize it, but that at the end of that 6 months, nobody will be able to receive any benefits due to the suspension (so someone MIGHT be able to get, at most, 6 months of this benefit, but it’s going to get cut off for everyone on May 2). Is that your understanding? Initially, I thought they were saying that, if you filed and suspended before that window closes, then you can keep it ongoing. But now it sounds like it’s going away outright.
Thanks!

DLorenz

Michael,
I’d sure like to see your answer to Daniel Mulligan’s posted question.

More Specifically,
For a person currently taking advantage of File & Suspend and a spouse currently using a restricted filing to get spousal benefits while still accumulating delayed retirement benefits (up to 132%), will the spouse’s benefits or delayed retirement benefits stop on April 30, 2016? (180 days after the bill’s passage.)

Daniel Milligan

Michael wrote a new article about this and I think it answers the question. The new law would not affect those who file and suspend before that 180 day mark. Here’s the link to the new article:

Michael,
My wife turns 62 in Oct 2016 and I will be 58, We are retired and had planned on her doing a file & suspend and myself claiming spousal benefits. Sounds like this is now off the table. Are we able to have her file and collect her full benefit and I collect my spousal benefit as well (until I file for my benefits at 62 or beyond if I elect to delay)?

kthyb8

Chris you have the file and suspend all wrong in the first place. A person can only file and suspend if they are full retirement age. And spousal benefits are not available until age 62, but if one files for spousal prior to FRA the benefits are forever reduced. All mute anyway, because the rules just changed and neither you or your wife will be eligible for these strategies. Sad for a lot of folks who have been planning retirement and depending on these strategies.

Aspy Canteenwalla

I have a question based on the above question. I turn 66 before April 30th 2016 my wife turns 62 after April 30th sometime in May how does all this apply to us I was planning on filing for social security can she file for spousal (50%) at age 62 my 50% is going to be quite a bit greater then hers since she was a housewife for many years. We are both thinking of retiring sometime in 2016 anyway.

ChickenLittle

You have to be at least 66 to do file and suspend. So you would need to be 65 and 6 months as of today. Otherwise not available.

Alan S.

Regarding the “lump sum” strategy (or what I term the “stand-by life insurance strategy”), whether or not the drafters of the budget bill intended to kill it, I do not believe that it is dead.

The budget bill adds subsection (z) to the Social Security Act and the relevant part reads: ‘‘(3) In the case of an individual who requests that such benefits be suspended under this subsection, for any month during the period in which the suspension is in effect—(A) no retroactive benefits (as defined in sub-section (j)(4)(B)(iii)) shall be payable to such individual”. Sub-section (j)(4)(B)(iii) reads: “ . . . the term ‘retroactive benefits’ means benefits to which an individual becomes entitled for a month prior to the month in which the application for such benefits is filed.” (For example, when someone is inadvertently late in filing and asks for the filing to be treated as if made six months earlier under sub-section (j)(1)(B).)

In order to “request that payment of such benefits be suspended” under the new subsection (z), an individual must first (or at the same time) have filed an application for benefits, otherwise how could benefits be suspended? But under the above definition, a lump sum request under POMS GN 02409.130 (“Voluntary Suspension Reinstatement”) is not a payment of “retroactive benefits” since the amount requested relates to months AFTER the application for benefits was filed. So it seems to me that lump sum lives on for everyone.

doug a

my wife and I will turn 66 in july. can we apply for file and suspend?

Diana Isid

I had a problem with my girlfriend six months ago,which lead us apart. When she broke up with me,I was no longer myself,I fill so empty inside.And i dont know what to do,I feel my life has come to an end because she was my first love.I went for counselling and advice online and i saw so many good comment about a spell caster on how he help them to solve their relationship and marriage issues.I email the spell caster on the email which was provided in the comments on (relationshipspell@gmail. com) and I told him my problem and I did what he asked me to briefly make the long story short, Before I knew what happened,after 48 hours,my girlfriend gave me a call and she came back to me and told me she was sorry about what happen and beg for forgiveness, I’m so grateful to these spell caster and i will not stop publishing his name on the internet just for the good work he did for me.If you need his help,you can email him at RELATIONSHIPSPELL@GMAIL. COM I will forever be grateful to him.He is the perfect solution to relationship and marriage issues

A spouse can no longer no longer recieve his/her spousal benefit if the other spouse has suspended his/her primary benefit. However, can a spouse claim his/her benefit, based on his/her earnings history record, while the other spouse delays filing to allow his/her benefit to grow? And, then, when the delaying spouse claims his/her now larger benefit, can the first spouse refile and now claim a potentially larger spousal benefit based on the spouse who delayed filing?

ChickenLittle

Spousal benefit is determine by primary earner’s PIA at full retirement age and is irrespective of whether the primary earner fills at 62 or 70, just that they filed. If the spousal benefit is higher than the one earned on their own earnings record, SSA will increase the amount automatically.

tomdad

Ok I get that for an Individual born 1953 and earlier the rules for restricted application remain the same. Since lump sums are no long allowed, what is the difference between file and suspend at FRA and just delaying filing until you want to receive benefits prior to 70?

No difference I can think of at this point. If you’re going to delay, just delay. No reason to file and suspend to delay.

Voluntary suspension would remain relevant if you started EARLY (e.g., at 63) and then changed your mind at 66, wanted to suspend and delay until 70, and use delayed retirement credits to boost your benefit back up after filing early cut it down to begin with.

But I don’t see why anyone would file at 66 and suspend immediately under the new rules.
– Michael

ChickenLittle

Clarification here. If an individual does not file and suspend within the next six months, access to the spousal benefit (restricting application) is lost until the primary earner reaches age 70 or begins benefits. Correct? If this is true, everyone 65 and 6 months should file and suspend, just in case. Am I missing something?

The spouse can file a Restricted Application if she’s entitled to a spousal benefit. That remains valid as long as she was born in 1953 or earlier (at least age 62 this year).

However, to BECOME entitled, the primary worker must file for benefits. In the next 6 months the primary worker could file-AND-SUSPEND. After that, the worker would just FILE.

So if I file for benefits in 2018, and my wife at the time is 66, she can go ahead and file a Restricted Application, because she’s grandfathered. I just can’t file-AND-SUSPEND in 2018. I’d have to file and actually GET my benefits.
– Michael

ChickenLittle

My point is that there is a reason to file and suspend in the next six months if higher earner was planning on delaying benefits until 70. In that case there is a difference

Correct, so as long as the primary worker ACTUALLY FILES, the spouse who was born in 1953 or earlier can do a restricted application.

Per my comment above, if I *FILE* for benefits (not file-and-suspend – FILE AND GET) in 2018 and my wife is 66 at the time, she can go ahead and file a Restricted Application. Because I filed for benefits.

The purpose of file-and-suspend was basically to FILE-AND-NOT-GET. That is dead. But you can still FILE-AND-GET. That’s simply how the system has already operated for decades.
– Michael

ChickenLittle

I suppose the original question did not differentiate between old rules and new rules. SSA is going to be slammed. I remember the how it was back when they closed the buyback loophole.

I am going to be 70 in August 2016 and suspended when my spouse reached FRA in June of 2014. She is receiving spousal benefits . Will we be grandfathered in or will her checks stop in May 2016? Do we need to take any action? Will she still receive DRC’s until she is 70?

Daniel Milligan

My understanding is that you and your wife are being grandfathered in since you are both above age 62 as of 2015. Since you are already utilizing the file and suspend strategy for spousal benefits, you are also fine (since that option is being cut off in 6 months).

I am currently 51, and my ex-husband has passed away. We were married over 10yrs and I have not
remarried. When I turn 62, would I still be able to claim his SS benefits, until I reach 70 to collect my own, providing I haven’t remarried?

Sally,
Yes, you will still be able to claim survivor benefits early, and wait on your individual retirement benefits until later (to earn the delayed retirement credits). The new rules only limit taking spousal benefits and switching later to individual; survivor benefits (including ex-spouse survivor benefits) remain in the clear.

In fact, it’s worth noting that you could start survivor benefits as early as age 60 (not age 62). But be cognizant that they’re subject to the Earnings Test if you’re still working at the same time, and that starting earlier will reduce the survivor benefits (at least until you switch to your own individual benefits, if higher).
– Michael

Trish Murphy Mobley

I am a 68 year old widow collecting my late husbands benefits. I plan to leave my own benefits untouched until I reach age 70. How does this new law affect me?

No effect. You’re claiming survivor benefits, which have no relationship to the spousal benefits impacted by the new law.
– Michael

Trish Murphy Mobley

Thank you ever so much! Every time I read about changes in SS I freak out…now I don’t have to worry.

CJ

If I’m 67 and haven’t signed up for benefits yet because I’m waiting until 70 to get max benefits and my spouse is 60 and was going to get half of my benefits at 66 and then his max benefits at 70, is that no longer possible because he’s only 60? He’s the higher earner, so what should be our strategy now?

Jon D

Unfortunately you’re barely missing the ability to do that. Also for a different reason than most.

Your spouse isn’t 62 is the reason why you can’t.

If you file and suspend today you would preserve the ability of your spouse to take benefits before you do. **But your spouses ability to file for restricted benefits is gone because she’s born after 1953.** So by the second test she will only be able to take his own benefits OR spousal benefits, but not one and then the other.

Mike if I read this right (and maybe I’m not) there is a bigger impact that is getting less attention than no more “claim now, claim more later” strategies.

6 months from now (if a person hasn’t already filed and suspended) than a spouse isn’t entitled to benefits until after they file and *take*. That means if said persons stay at home spouse is (lets say) 6 years older and historically it made sense for that person to take benefits at age 70… then the spouse wouldn’t be able to claim any benefits until age 76, right?

That seriously changes every social security analysis out there as age discrepancies are now the number one factor in determining benefits claiming going forward for single breadwinner households.

Jon,
Yes you’re correct, but technically this was already an issue with such a significant age gap (as the older spouse was going to be 72 before the younger spouse was 66 and able to file and suspend in the first place).

So yeah, delayed until age 70 will hold spousal benefits in abeyance for another 4 years. But even if they were the SAME age, it would have the same outcome (waiting on benefits another 4 years).

This was always the core issue for spouses in single-income households, and why file-and-suspend was so appealing. It put four years of extra spousal benefits on the table (which applies for a same-age spouse and one who is much older).
– Michael

David

Hi Jon and Michael,

I’m getting a little confused. If there is a couple at ages 62 (63 in a month) and age 63, male and female respectively. They loose file and suspend but can still use restricted applications. When she reaches FRA at 66 and files to claim benefits, wouldn’t she receive 50% of his benefit assuming it’s higher?

If he planned to not take benefits until age 70, I’m now under the impression once he turned 66, her benefits would revert from spousal benefits to the lower amount of her own retirement benefit. I feel like I’m missing something?

I greatly appreciate any insight.
-David

Jean

What happens to the young wife and minor children of someone who has already filed and suspended? Do their benefits go away in 6 months?

Michael,
I am currently 61 (born in 1954), planning to work two and a half more years and then retire. My husband passed at age 71 while we were still married. He was receiving full benefits. I had planned to file for spousal benefits at age 64 in 2018 and delay receiving my benefits until age 70. Under the new provisions, am I understanding correctly that I may still claim spousal benefits at age 64 and switch to my own benefits which will be higher at a later time?

Connie,
If your husband has passed away, you are eligible for survivor benefits, which are entirely different/separate from the rules for spousal benefits.

You can claim survivor benefits at any time after age 60 (though if you start early they are reduced), and switch to your individual benefits later. That was not impacted by these rules. Though in practice if you’re still working you won’t want to start the survivor benefits yet, as they’re subject to the Earnings Test that can reduce benefits if you earn “too much” (more than $15,720 in a year).

I am still confused. My husband is 68 and I reached 67 in August this year. He just applied the file and suspend and I started getting the spousal benefits for August and September. Will I continue to receive it?

This is totally unfair, its being FRAMED as a loophole, but it really isn’t, the 2000 act wanted to encourage senior citizens to enter the workforce when they turn FRA, thus the income limitation was eliminated for those at FRA, but those say between 62 and FRA (66 for someone born in 1953 for example).

The income limitation is silly because when a person collects at 62 the benefit is permanently red

Matt

Carefully reading the whole article, all of the comments and Michael’s Kitces’s replies, I believe that I have gotten mixed messages from him on what would be the outcome of a scenario relevant to me. Assume a spouse who is already 66 has not yet applied for any kind of social security status in order to delay for a higher benefit at age 70. The other spouse, who has also not applied, is now 63, so gets grandfathered into the ability to file a restricted application a few years from now. If the first spouse files and suspends within the next six months, will that act as a placeholder, permitting the 2nd spouse to file for and receive spousal benefits at age 66 (prior to the time when the 1st spouse turns 70 and files for personal benefits)?

Matt,
Yes, I believe these kinds of file-and-suspend-now-for-delayed-restricted-application later scenarios are feasible. The file and suspend has to occur within the next 6 months, and then the restricted application will happen in 3 years when the younger spouse reaches full retirement age.

Of course, by the time the younger spouse is 66, the older spouse would be 69, and within 1 year of applying for benefits at age 70 anyway. So at best, this strategy only opens up 1 extra year of spousal benefits that the couple wouldn’t have had. Still, it IS one year of extra spousal benefits, so clearly better than not getting them for that 1-year period! 🙂
– Michael

Sam

The wording in the bill now reads: “The amendments made by this
subsection shall apply with respect to requests for benefit suspension
submitted beginning at least 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.”

By my reading, if the request for benefit suspension occurs in the next 6 months, then the new rules in this section would not apply. From this, it appears that filing and suspending now would act as a “placeholder” for a spousal restricted application after the 6 months and while the suspension is still in effect. (assuming the spouse was old enough in 2015 to be grandfathered for restricted applications).

File and suspend is only possible once you’re already full retirement age (66). Your husband will never be able to do file and suspend, because the rule is gone in 6 months and he won’t be 66 for 3 years.

That being said, you’re already getting YOUR benefit right now. If that is higher than 50% of his benefit, that’s all you will ever get either way. If the spousal benefit (50% of his) is higher, you can switch to that until he actually claims Social Security (at 66 or whenever). Or you may choose to have him delay until 70, but file a restricted application when he is 66 to get 50% of YOUR benefit while he continues to wait.

I fall within the grandfathered group for restrictive application (will be 62 in December of this year). My spouse who is will be 62 next year is not. I would like to file the restrictive ss application to get spousal benefits but if I understand correctly, my husband would need to file for his own social security benefits and then I would file the restrictive application. Since he plans to continue to work beyond FRA, if he files at age 66, his earnings would not offset the social security benefits. So, can I hold off filing to age 66.5 years, at which time my husband would be FRA. Would I still be grandfathered?

Pat,
Because you will be age 62 this year, you are permanently grandfathered. Whenever you go to file a Restricted Application, now or many years from now, you will always be able to.

However, as you note, you cannot file a restricted application for spousal benefits until your spouse actually applies for and gets his benefits in the first place.

So yes, if he waits and doesn’t apply for benefits until 2019 or 2020, whenever he does, you can file a restricted application at that time, because you turned 62 this year and were grandfathered.
– Michael

laselvabiker

Chicken Little concludes that a SS applicant must be at least 65years and 6months old as of today in order to still utilize the file and suspend with spousal benefits (50%), while Kitces blog wrote that those already age 62 in 2015 would be enabled to file and suspend with spousal benefits. Where am I misunderstanding here?

No, I wrote that those already age 62 in 2015 would be enabled to do a RESTRICTED APPLICATION. Not File and Suspend, which ends in 6 months. Different rules, different effective dates.

Moneypenny

I appreciate your in depth explanation of the SS file and suspend rules but would appreciate some clarification. I am almost 65, started my meager SS draw in January 2015. My husband is 63. He plans to file for benefits on Monday Nov 1 and suspend by Dec 1. My plan was to collect spousal benefits in November to beef up my draw. My read is that we can still do this, and I presume his benefit will not be effected, except by his earned income, when he takes SS at age 66. Thoughts?

Michael Mowgli

I am 66 and have not filed. My wife (much lower wage earning history) will be 62 in March 2016. I always planned to wait until 70 to file in order to maximize my benefit and my wife’s spousal and survivor (eventually) benefits.

She had planned to file in March 2016 and I was going to file for my spousal benefit against her record. Then when I turn 70 in 2019, I would take my own account and she would convert her benefit to a spousal benefit against my record.

Can we still do this?

Should we also calculate file and suspend for me when she turns 62 in March 2016?

Rebecca Banks

I’m sorry, I’m confused. What is the difference between file and suspend and restricted application? I will be 65 this December and I was planning on filing and suspending at 66 on my ex-husband benefits. He is 66 and currently on disability. I am planning on working until 70, then filing on my record, which would be significantly higher than my ex’sj. Am I grandfathered in based on my birth year, or have I missed it by not being 65 and 6 months as of now??

What you are describing has no relationship to file and suspend. What you are describing is restricted application – which means getting your spousal benefits and delaying your own.

Since you’re already 65, you’re grandfathered, and will be able to do exactly this. No impact from the new rules.

File and suspend would be NOT getting any benefits yourself until you turn 70, and giving your HUSBAND access to spousal benefits (i.e., HE gets 50% of YOUR benefits). That goes away in 6 months. It’s also completely irrelevant for you, because your husband already gets his own benefits, and you want 50% of HIS, not to give HIM 50% of YOURS.
– Michael

Diogeron

Michael,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way I read this is that if one spouse @ FRA is drawing, the other spouse (IF 62 or oldeR) could still file for a spousal benefit subject to current policy re: income etc., and draw the spousal benefit or wait until FTA to get max spousal benefits. That person drawing the spousal benefit could then wait until 70, drop the spousal and get FR benefits. Most important, the 6 months window only applies to file and suspend, not the scenerio I describe, which is restricted or something similar. Is that correct?

Michael, I thought the current deemer rule would require the Pre-FRA individual in Diogeron’s fact pattern to claim their own benefit as well (not just spousal) if they elected to file prior to their own FRA age and if the other spouse has already filed or filed and suspended (facts say the other spouse is drawing). The facts seem to question whether they could file prior to FRA for spousal only, then at age 70 switch to their own. Seems to me they can’t since to claim a spousal benefit prior to FRA they will also be deemed to have applied for their own. Apologies if I didn’t read the facts correctly or missed a key point about the application of the deemer rule.

Question – say right now a man is 67 and his wife 65. Neither has applied for nor is collecting Social Security. In 3 years when he turns 70 he can collect his Social Security, and his wife (who will be 68) can collect a spousal benefit, correct? Prior to this change in law they would have been able to do this when she turned 66. So, they can still collect the spousal for 2 years, rather than the 4 years they would have before the law changed. Did I miss anything? Thanks.

Ron

I will be 66 in this month and wife is 63. If I file and suspend then she can claim a spousal benefit based on my earnings by filing a restricted application.since she is not fra does the benefit get reduced?

Eugene Shcherba

Hello Michael,
I am 67, still work and did not do “File and Suspend” yet.
My wife is 65 and 2 months young and had a very low income.
Her pension at FRA would be 3 time smaller than spousal benefits based on my income.

1. I intend to “File and Suspend” within month (within 6 month grace period)
2. In end of August 2016 my wife will be 66 (FRA). That date is beyond of 6 months of grace period for File and Suspend.

Question: Will she be able to file for my spousal benefits at age 66 (FRA) or it would be too late ?

Our doubts based on following part of proposed amendment (see part (B):
——
Any individual who has attained FRA and is entitled to old-age insurance benefits may request that payment of such benefits be suspended

In the case of an individual who requests that such benefits be suspended under this subsection,
for any month during the period in which the suspension is in effect

‘‘(A) no retroactive benefits shall be payable to such individual;
‘‘(B) no monthly benefit shall be payable to any other individual on the basis of such individual’s wages and self-employment income;
and
‘‘(C) no monthly benefit shall be payable to such individual on the basis of another individual’s wages and self-employment income.
——

Thank you for your article

Curious

I saw the link to this blog from the NYT. Great info.
Our scenario: wife reaches FRA in 9/2016. I will in 8/2017. Can wife file to receive benefits in 8/2017, and at the same time I would file a restricted app for spousal benefits, (and wait to file for myself at age 70.) Or does wife need to begin receiving her benefits BEFORE I can file a restricted app, rather than at same time? Thank you – we were planning for her to file and suspend until age 70 – new law pushes her filing about 3 years earlier, but still seems to be the best option for us, as the spousal benefits are significant. Our estimated FRA payments are similar, mine being nominally higher. Thank you so much for this info.

Eugene Shcherba

To Curious.
I think information on this page would be helpful to understand how “Restricted Application” starts.http://financialducksinarow.com/9617/file-suspend-and-restricted-application-are-not-equal/
Key phrase there is “It’s easy to see why: one (File & Suspend) can be used to enable the other (Restricted Application)”
Unfortunately in your case neither your wife nor you can do “File and Suspend” within 6 month after amendment to the law because individual must attain FRA.

Laura

In every discussion I’ve read there is no mention of the actual date the new law takes effect. Was it October 30? What is the specific date six months thereafter at which individuals will no longer be able to use the file and suspend strategy? I am 66 this month but my husband won’t be 66 until June 17, 2015. It seems he’ll be just a few weeks shy of the deadline to file and suspend. We had planned that I would receive spousal benefits when he suspended in June for the three plus years between 66 and 70.Is this off the table now for us? Would it be best to just file for my own benefit now until he reaches age 70? It will only be half as much as the spousal benefit would have been!

The law hasn’t actually been signed yet, so there is no final enacted date yet. It’s expected to be signed sometime in the coming week.
– Michael

Laura

I meant to say that my husband will be 66 on June 17, 2016 (not 2015)- seven and a half months from now.

Laura

Thank you Michael. Your article is so informative! We have an appointment to try and figure this out tomorrow but I still am wondering if there is any way we can continue with our plan to receive my spousal benefit between now and when my husband reaches 70. Can I file a restricted application even if he isn’t filing and getting yet? Or would he have to file and get at age 66 (June 17, 2016) for that to work now? That would mean forgoing the credits he could have earned between 66- 70.

Debstinydogs

Michael, If the husband is FRA and has filed a restricted application and is getting 50% spousal benefits, will he now also need to go in to SS and do a suspend and resume on top of the restricted application within the next 6 months in order to let his SS grow to 70?

i will be 66 in august 2016. will i be able to file and suspend in may 2016 to beat the deadline?

working girl

I will retire at 67 and my husband will be 65. We were planning on him claiming his benefits at 65 while I claimed a spousal benefit at 67 (I am the higher wage earner.) Can I then, switch and claim my own full benefits at 70?

Ricky

My question would best be asked by giving an example: Client A is 66 while Client B is 65 (and won’t turn 66 within the 6 month window). Neither have done anything in regards to claiming Social Security. If Client A files and suspends in the next 6 months, would that preserve the ability for Client B to receive a restricted application when they turn 66 (after the 6 month window has passed)?

weston

I believe the social security law changed back in 2000 by Congress? 2000-1946 = 54. Could the boomers have been that forward looking, 11-12 yrs out? How devious……………Anybody here want to raise their hand?

Steve

I will be 66 in July, 2016 and plan to file restrictive application to spousal benefit, my wife will be 69 in July, 2016, since she cannot use the File and Suspend next year due to the NEW rule. One option is to File and Suspend now(before May’2016). Second option is for her to take her benefit at 69(7/2016) and I would file restricted application and take half of her FRA amount in July’2016, and defer my benefit till I am 70. Since that all will be changed, am I correct that both above options are still viable in our case?

Before the New Rule, we were planning on her doing her File and Suspend in 2016 till she is
70 in 2017, and I would file the restricted application to spousal benefit.

Steve.

Sebastian DiCasoli

My scenario is same as Michael Mowgli. I’m now 65 and 10 mos. and my wife is 62 and one mo. My PIA is much larger. We plan to file on Jan. 8, 2016, my wife claims working benefit and I make a restricted application for spousal benefits. Then in Jan. 2020, I switch to my work benefits and she switches to her spousal benefit. Can we use still use this strategy?

Steve Condie

There is one aspect of the file and suspend “effective date” analysis which I think is wrong. The new rules apply to “requests for benefit suspension submitted beginning at least 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.” Thus the deadline is the deadline for submitting the request, not the date the request becomes active. I think you can apply for benefits and for suspension of those benefits with the application specifying that you want it to take effect when you reach FRA on your 66th birthday up to four months before that date. So people who turn 66 up to four months after April 30 should be able to file their request to start and suspend benefits before the deadline passes.

Laura

I certainly hope your analysis is correct! My husband turns 66 only six weeks after the 180 day deadline. If file and suspend is off the table for him we need to completely revise our retirement plans. If he can in fact legitimately file a request for suspension before the deadline passes we really need to know that now. How can we find out how the law is being interpreted?

Steve,
You can submit a request for benefits to occur up to four months in advance. But I’m not aware of any rule that permits the request for voluntarily suspension OF those benefits four months in advance.

Can you direct me to anything in POMS that actually validates the ability to request a voluntary suspension BEFORE the individual actually reaches full retirement age?
– Michael

Steve Condie

I know this is old, but while I can’t refer you to a publication this is what happened in the real world: In February I filed my request for benefits online to take effect when I reached FRA in May, and included a request for suspension of those benefits in my submission. I received no response until May, when I was mailed a notice that my request for benefits had been granted and would be suspended as requested. I can’t see any way in which I have not complied with the statute; my request for suspension was submitted less that 180 days after the effective date of the law.

CrankyLiberal

A bit confused now about this restricted vs file and suspend in relation to FRA. My wife is 64, started taking benefits at age 62; I turned 62 this year (2015). I had planned on waiting until age 70 to take benefits. Given new law, will I be ineligible to take restricted at 66 (my FRA)?

Richard@62

Michael, I turned 62 in March of 2015 and plan to retire in March of 2016 at age 63. My wife is 61 and will be 62 in June 2016. If I am understanding this correctly, I can file and suspend or have a restrictive application, but she can not? We will be eligible for about the same amount. Do I have to wait until she turns 62 and files before I file and suspend or a restrictive application? It will be past the 6 month deadline. What are my options?

CC

Scenario: Husband will turn 70 in 8/2017. Wife will reach FRA in 7/2016. Wife’s own SS benefit will never be as high as the spousal benefit. The plan had been for Husband to file-and-suspend in early April 2016 and Wife to start the spousal benefit at FRA in 7/2016. Will this still work? If not, if Wife starts her own paltry benefit upon reaching FRA in 7/2016, can she switch over to the spousal benefit in 8/2017 when Husband turns 70 and starts collecting? Thanks.

miamisid

It is unfortunate that strategies have been eliminated. For the planners it was a great gift. That noted I have noticed that over and over many commenting about the process in previous articles I have read derided the concept as being some sort of government conspiracy put in place so more people will die before they collect full retirement. For the tin foil hate crowd this is a boon. I am sorry to see the option gone
.

Oscar Zilch

Michael–have been following you for a year or so but this is my first post. From my reading and research, it appears you are one of the top financial planners in the country. Have a basic question for you and/or your readers:

Husband, age 66, filed at age 65 yr., 2 mo. and is
currently drawing on his record. Wife, age 67, began drawing at age 65 on own
record (minimal) and is now drawing spousal benefit. Can husband still choose
to voluntarily suspend his benefit until age 70 (or perhaps 68 or 69, depending
on events) in order to earn delayed retirement credits (“DRCs”)? If so, can
wife continue to draw spousal benefit?

If husband suspends pursuant to above, earns DRCs and
then dies at, say 69, before benefits are reinstated, will wife draw a
survivor’s benefit equal to husband’s benefit computed with earned DRCs up to
date of death?

My wife and I didn’t find out about the option for her to take out half of my SS earnings until she turned 70 and started her own SS. We applied then, but were only credited with half of the last 6 months of my SS earnings. Obviously, if we had known about this when she turned 65, we would have taken the money, which was badly needed. I have written several letters to the SS Administration, but never even received an answer. I have read stories about the SSA going back several years to recover money awarded on false premises, so I would think they should have an obligation also to go back several years for someone who lost because being unaware of an obviously poorly advertised benefit.
Does anyone have a solution? For us, it is too much money to lose.

Steve

So if I file for Restricted divorcee benefits at my FRA of 66, how would this affect my ex-spouse who is less than age 62, (DOB 9-26-54) this year, in claiming divorcee benefits on my earning record, which is significantly more than her earnings record. She has been on SSDI for about 6 years, and the benefits on her own record are less than what they would be collecting the 50% divorcee benefits on my record.

If I am collecting Restricted divorcee benefits from age 66 to 70, I assume I am considered to be suspending my own benefit, potentially affecting her ability to collect her divorcee benefits? Would this be an example of some of the unintended consequences mentioned in some of the entries below?

What would be her best options to maximize her benefits under the new regulations?

James Nesbitt

Steve:
Provided you will be 62 before 2016, you retain the ability to file a restricted application and claim a “spousal-only” benefit at FRA. To be entitled on your ex-spouse’s record, she must be at least age 62. At FRA, you will not be filing on your own work record. Your own retirement benefit can only be “suspended” if you first file for that benefit. Since you are not filing for your own retirement benefit, it will not be “suspended”. When your ex-spouse reaches age 62, she may claim a benefit on your work record (even if you have not filed for benefits based on your own work record) provided she has been divorced for at least 2 years. She needs to meet an additional requirement of being divorced for longer than 2 years. The duration of divorce requirement applies to “independently entitled divorced spouses”. Because you are not filing on your own work record, her entitlement will be as an “independently entitled divorced spouse”.

Steve

Thanks for the response. What are the consequences if I were to file for my benefits at age 65, collect for at least a year, then switch to a divorcee benefit from age 66+ until 70 and let my DRC accumulate until then? In this case, am I suspending my benefit if I then claim the divorcee benefits?

Would this create a situation that would potentially affect my ex-spouse to if she were to file for divorcee benefits on my earnings record?

If she files at age 62 does she receive a reduced benefit based on my FRA earnings or would it be on the reduced amount of my benefits based on age 65 start? Would it be best for her to delay filling as long as possible to maximize her amount that she could collect based on my earnings record?

James Nesbitt

If you file for your retirement benefit at 65, you will not be able to claim a spousal benefit (then or at age 66) on your ex’s record. This is because the benefit to which you are entitled is greater than what you could draw on her record as a spouse. If you suspend your retirement benefit at FRA, you are still considered to be “entitled” and the amount of benefit on your record is considered in computing any subsequent spousal benefit. As such, Social Security would say the benefit amount to which you are entitled (albeit suspended) is greater than the amount payable as a spouse. If you file for any benefits prior to FRA, you have to file on your own work record due to the rule of deemed filing. The receipt of a spousal benefit does not effect the workers benefit amount. If your ex spouse files on your record when she is 62, her additional spousal payment will be based on your full retirement age benefit. While she can delay filing to receive a higher payment at a later age, the decision to wait is based on many factors. Her spousal payment, and any resultant reduction, is based on the difference between her primary insurance amount (full disability benefit amount prior to any reduction for Medicare) and 50% of your full retirement amount. ie: your full amount = $2500 and her full amount= $900. Spousal amount: $2500 x .5 = $1250-900=$350.00. Her spousal benefit would be $350 if she elects it at FRA (66). Taking it prior to 66 results in a reduction. At 62 the $350 is reduced to $246/mo. Since she is on disability, her total benefit at 62 would be $900 + 246= $1146/mo. By waiting until age 66 to claim the spousal benefit, she would forgo $246 x 47 months = $11,562 to gain an additional $104/mo. The break even age would be 75.2. Longevity risk is a factor of consideration. Keep in mind, she may qualify for a divorced widow’s benefit on your record in the event you predecease her. That amount can equal 100% of your benefit.

Steve

Thanks very much for the thorough explanation. So the take away summary would be:

1. At least one ex spouse must be FRA for either to file a Restricted Divorcee application.
2. The younger ex spouse can file at early retirement age but will be subject to reduced benefits, and waiting until at least until FRA maximizes their benefit particularly if they want to provide against longevity risk.
3. It’s a little scary to realize for the higher earning spouse that they are worth more to the crazy ex spouse dead than alive, particularily once the alimony is paid off!

Perhaps that is the quick patch/fix for the potential vindictive spouse who files and suspends in an attempt to limit the ex spouses abilility to collect on their benefits. SSA just needs to post signs saying, “WARNING! If you fill and suspend to try limit your ex spouse’s benefits, remember YOU ARE WORTH MORE TO THEM DEAD THAN ALIVE! “

James Nesbitt

You are right. To be able to file a restricted application at full retirement age as a divorced spouse, you must be age 62 before 2016.

Jim Sciarrino

Michael, I turn 66 in late May 2016. My wife will be 66 in February 2016. We have not filed for SSA benefits yet. Can I file in May 2016 for my full benefits and once I do that, can my wife file a restricted application to receive 1/2 of my SSA benefits? And then when she reaches age 70, can my wife file to turn on her OWN SSA benefits? Or to execute this strategy under the new rules, do I have to file for my benefits BEFORE the April 30 deadline??

John Cosby

I will be 68 in January 2016. I started my SS at age 62. I suspended my benefits in April 2015 (age 67-my FRA is 66, check not received in May). I reinstated effective November (1st check will be received in Dec 2015-no checks received in May, June, July, Aug, Sep, Oct, or Nov-7 months) to avoid the spike in Medicare Part B premiums. I just got a letter from SSA stating that my benefit amount will be exactly the same as it was before the suspension when my check is issued in Dec 2015.. I called the national toll-free number and my local office and both said that since I started benefits at age 62 that there is no way to ever increase my benefits. They said I would not be receiving any delayed retirement credits. I scheduled a phone meeting with a claims representative at my local office for Tuesday Nov 17. Why is SS saying that my benefits can never be increased? What do I need to say to them to convince them that my benefits should be increased by 7/12ths of 8%? If they still won’t do it, then I will have to request that my benefits be reinstated back to the date of suspension and request a lump sum for the full 7 months as I don’t think it would be worth getting a lawyer to force the issue.

Oscar–Thanks so much for sharing this link. I made a note to let you know how this turns out.

John Cosby

Oscar–I found out during my phone meeting with a SS account specialist in our local office that the delayed retirement credits are not added until the end of the year. The increase will be effective January and received in the check which is received in February. I didn’t even bother to mention that misinformation that was given to me in the 2 aforementioned phone calls. It was also interesting to note the SS rep had only a meager idea of the changes just signed into law on Nov 2, 2015. She encouraged us to check out the changes regarding file and suspend and restricted applications in case they might affect our plans as a couple. They are officially in the dark until their manuals are updated or they are otherwise notified in writing so they really can’t comment or field questions about the new rules.

Oscar Zilch

John–I am not surprised about the agent’s lack of knowledge on the new law. but at least you got your DRCs corrected. Do you plan to re-suspend early next year?

John Cosby

Oscar– I am undecided. Still weighing my options.

Larry Carpenter

Michael,

First off, your knowledge and explanations are superb. Thank you!

I am currently right in the middle of my planning of maximizing both mine and my wife’s social security incomes. And, sure enough, the feds step in and change the ground rules.

I am 69 and will be 70 in February of 2016. My wife is 64 and will be 65 in January of
next year, not of FRA until February 2017. I have NOT applied for my retirement benefits, though was planning to do so in February of 2016, as I will have allowed them to maximize to the 32% greater value.

My plan was to take my SS at 70, and have my wife apply and suspend her SS when she reached 66 and then have her apply against my SS ( ½ benefit) while her own was suspended for 4 year to maximize it. I guess that is out of the question by six months now.

However, I’m not certain about the grandfathering issue which is a little confusing for us. I contacted the social security department by phone and got two diversely different answers, go figure. In short, since we are both in fairly good health and still working, under the new grandfather ruling can we have her draw against my SS (when she reaches FRA in Jan 2017) while suspending & maximizing her own retirement benefit ?

Larry,
Applying for spousal benefits while suspending your own retirement benefits is *NOT* called “file and suspend”. That is called a Restricted Application (which is short for “Restricted Scope of Application For Spousal Benefits”).

Since your wife is already at least age 62, she will still be allowed to do a restricted application at her full retirement age to obtain spousal benefits while she delays her own individual retirement benefits until later.

So basically, your plans have not been altered in any way by the new rules. Proceed as originally planned.
– Michael

Larry Carpenter

Thank you Michael !

Joanne Tackes

You noted that File-and-Suspend effectively enrolls the filed in Medicare Part A which precludes further Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions. Do Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) follow these same rules? Also, if one files a Restricted Application, is (s)he now enrolled in Medicare Part A and also precluded from future HSA/MSA contributions?

Jim

I have a question regarding the actual process of filing. I read an article that implied that the “file and suspend” application enables you to then file a “restricted” application. Is that the case or are they entirely separate? I am currently drawing a reduced benefit (I filed at age 62), and when my wife retires next year at FRA (66) we plan to file a restricted application for her to receive half of my full earned benefit. Does she first have to “file and suspend” for her own benefit and then file a “restricted” application to get 1/2 my benefit? Or does she simply file a “restricted” application for 1/2 of my benefit and then file for her own full benefit at age 70?

Pelayo Cantos

I am currently 66 years old and still working; my wife will turn 65 next January 2016. If I file and suspend after she turns 65, I believe she will be able to get a reduced (43% +/-) benefit. Am I correct?

Oscar Zilch

I believe you are correct, as you meet the time requirements under the new law. The SSA web site will give you the exact amount of the percentage reduction.

Glen Moore

I have been using software, supposedly upgraded with new 2015 Budget Act rules. It is recommending that I file a restricted application for 50% of my wife’s benefit when she turns 65 in the last half of 2016, and not file for my own benefit until the last part of 2020 when I turn 70, which will allow me to receive 132% of my full retirement age benefit. Can I still do that if I don’t reach age 66 until the last half of 2016?

Allen

Michael, I will be 67 in March and my wife will be 65 in August. I plan to work 1-2 years more and my wife is already retired but not receiving Social Security. Can I file and suspend by the change in rule deadline in April and then have my wife claim spousal benefits when she turns 65 in August? Thanks!

My husband and I are both 64 and both still doing consulting work. I took SS at 62 (after learning my break-even was 78) & my husband planned to “file-and-suspend” at 66 and take SS at 70 to maximize his benefits. Now, with the new changes, does it make sense for him to take SS sooner than 70? (He’s currently making $150-200K/year & paying hefty taxes.) Also, is the survivor benefit based on the benefit amount at FRA or on the actual age (in his case, 70) when one takes SS? Now that I’ve taken SS at 62 on my own record, do I ever qualify for a spousal benefit? And, if my husband takes SS at 70 and I survive him, do I receive a combination of my SS and his SS? Or, is it just mine (which is paltry!) Thanks in advance!

Steve

There seems to be a great deal of discussion about high income earners using a particular social security benefit i.e file and suspend technique to maximize benefits. I am totally surprised that we should even know the wealth statistics of those who receive social security benefits. A main discussion point regarding social security when it was first initiated was that it was for everyone regardless of income. Just the fact that who gets social security benefits and which kind they get should NOT be anyone’s business. So why do we even know about it? I worry that the next step will be some kind of “means testing” where if you have income from other sources then you will be ineligible for SS benefits.. YIKES… so those of us who planned for retirement and saved money elsewhere would be penalized? I am a school teacher and so was my wife … we are not poor but not wealthy and this latest change in benefits picked my pocket for about 50K… OUCH!! my representative in Congress has not yet responded to my questions about how this could happen. Sigh…

Fred Geshnotinin

I am currently 62 and my wife turns 66 in October. We both are currently working. I had planned on having my wife file and suspend until I reach age 66, then she would start drawing her Social Security benefits, and I would file and suspend my benefits until age 70, and claim spousal benefits (1/2 of what wife’s benefits would have been at FRA). Under the new rules, is this still possible?

Fred,
By the time you are full retirement age of 66, it looks like your wife will already be age 70. If she is 70, she will never File-and-Suspend. She would simply File and GET benefits at age 70, enabling you to get 50% of her benefit.

You will be able to claim spousal benefits but NOT your own benefits at age 66. That is called filing a restricted application (NOT file-and-suspend), which you can do because you’re already age 62-or-older this year and will remain eligible.

Neither of you would ever be doing file-and-suspend in your scenario, so the end of file-and-suspend is irrelevant for you with this claiming plan.
– Michael

Fred Geshnotinin

I disagree. Both of us would be doing File and suspend/restricted claim each of us at FRA of 66.

I understand that the new rules effectively kill most forms of “claim now, claim more later” and “start-stop-start” Social Security claiming. But we don’t intend to do start-stop-start strategy, rather its a form of claim now, claim more later.

I think maybe I didn’t explain the full strategy. Here goes:
I am the higher wage earner than my wife.

Her SS benefit at FRA (she will be 66) in October would be about 1865/month. My SS benefit at FRA four years from now will be about 2570/month. My birthday is in June.

The strategy is-

My wife files and suspends in October. I do not apply for spousal f benefits at that time. Her FRA SS benefits grow at 8% until I reach age 66 at which point my wife will be 68/69.

When I reach 66, I file and suspend or file a restricted claim until age 70, but my wife then starts collecting SS paid out at about 2550/mnth (1865 + 8% for 3 years) and I apply for spousal benefits of 932/month (50% of wife’s benefits at her FRA) which I get until I reach age 70, then I will revert back to my SS benefit at that time. (estimated to be 3496/mnth, my 2570 at 8% for 4 years).

The strategy allows us to collect 43600 over 4 years of my suspended SS, and my wife collects higher SS benefits than if she started collecting at FRA.
I think I should be able to still do this, since I’m already 62, but nervous about the grandfathering between now and April 30th 2016.
Thanks Michael for your thoughts. Gad, this is complicated!

If your wife plans to wait until she’s 68/69 to claim benefits, just wait until she’s 68/69 to claim benefits. JUST DELAYING will give her the exact same benefit as trying to file-and-suspend to wait until the same time period. The only reason for her to file-and-suspend is if YOU want to get YOUR spousal benefits now, which you already said you DON’T plan to do.

That aside, if she isn’t full retirement age until next October, she cannot file-and-suspend anyway, because she’ll be past the deadline. Which, again, doesn’t matter, because there was no reason for her to file and suspend anyway.

If your plan is that she files when she’s 69, you do a restricted application for 50% of her benefit (which you can do because you were born in 1953 or earlier), and you switch to your full benefit at your age 70, then do it. None of that has any relationship to file-and-suspend.
– Michael

Fred Geshnotinin

Aha, I think I get it.

But just to be clear, what is the difference between file and suspend, delaying when to claim benefits and a restricted application? Don’t benefits still increase at 8% until you start taking benefits?

Are you saying that when you reach FRA, you aren’t required to file for SS (unlike say Medicare Part A which you HAVE to sign up for at 65 1/2), but you can file for SS benefits anytime you want to after FRA?

Now to really complicate things, you said above “if she isn’t full retirement age until next October, she cannot file-and-suspend anyway, because she’ll be past the deadline” is there any scenario then where it might make sense for her to file now at age 65 1/2, get reduced SS benefits until October, then suspend until 70 and in the meantime, I do a restricted application for 50% of her benefit now at age 62?
My wife In effect by filing now beats the grandfathering effect of the new law?

RF

I am currently age 66 and my wife is currently 62, so she is grandfathered for “restricted benefits” based on my FRA amount. We want her to apply for restricted benefits as soon as she turns 66, which will occur 2 months before I turn 70. I plan to delay drawing any benefits until I am 70, and my wife would also delay drawing on her own earnings record until she is 70 to maximize both of our delayed retirement credits.

Will my wife be allowed to draw the restricted benefit if I do not first “file and suspend”? If I am required to file and suspend before she can claim a restricted benefit, is it critical that I do this prior to the end of the 6-month grace period after the law was passed? If I file and suspend after this grace period, would that prevent my wife from drawing any benefit based on my earnings record based on the wording of the new Social Security Act subsection 202(z)?

Larry Lewandowski

So, a divorcee now 63, whose ex-husband is over full retirement age, can file a restricted a application and begin to collect a spousal benefit (though reduced) based on the ex-husband’s benefits. This is true even if the 63 yr old divorcee’s earning record would result in a higher retirement benefit. The plan would be for her to file and take off of work for couple of years and to begin work again at Full Retirement Age to ultimately retire at 70. I assume this plan is doable?

Lucretia Mott

Hi Michael – we met yesterday with a SS expert who said that the following would help us with our retirement plan and I would like to know if I’ve got this correct: I am 67 and will be 68 in Feb., but unfort. I was forced to take my SS at age 62 (since we were buying a house, I had lost my job and it was nec. for me to take SS to qualify for the mortgage’s income requirement). My husband is 64 and will turn 65 on April 30th of 2016. The advice we got was for him to file for spousal benefits at age 66 at which time he would be eligible to receive 1/2 of the benefit amount I would have made at my FRA of 66 (considerably higher than what I have been getting since the SS expert said the amount is based on that FRA figure). From what I’m reading, he will be eligible to utilize this plan because you had to be 62 yrs. of age by December 31st, 2015. While we are certainly not sure that my husband will suspend and work until 70, we planned to “play it by ear” that this may or may not be the case. I am also curious as to whether or not there is some impact on my husband’s own SS benefit amount when he does being drawing his own benefit, after receiving half of mine for the years he takes it.

I think the more I am reading here the more confused I am becoming, partic. when I am reading things e.g., F and S v. Restricted application, “6 mos.and retroactive filing” etc. I just want to be sure we aren’t being led down some primrose path only to be disappointed later. Can you help clarify for me exactly what we can avail ourselves to?

Gal_In_NC

I am 67, still working full time. I am enrolled in Medicare, Parts A/B but have not filed for my SS benefits, choosing instead to let my benefits grow and avoid the potential tax liability of the extra income.
My retired spouse, will not be 62 until November 2016, was self employed with no pension benefits.
In order to maximize our retirement benefits, our planned strategy was to delay my SS until my spouse turned 62 and could file for spousal benefits using the file-and-suspend rules.
With the recent changes, what options are available to us now?
If I file and suspend now, will I avoid the Medicare premium increase?

I’ve seen laws slog through congress for years but am astounded at the lightening speed of this one! They seem oblivious to the effects this will have on millions who have planned their retirement based on these rules since 2000 and now have to adjust in 6 months! What happened to “incremental” change? Shame on them!

Lillie Sue Makhanian

I had doubts about magic spells after purchasing many spells that never worked I actually decided to never buy a spell again. I have tried different spell casters..Some of them never answered me after I paid and were obvious scammers, some really cast a spell but for some reason it didn’t work. Then I saw a video on youtube with a person who was mentioning she had results with Mama Anita. Despite the suspicions I had her site looked real so I gave spells a last try. It’s probably the best decision I ever made in my life because it worked and my boyfriend came back with me After I broke up with him I spent a lot of time wishing that I could just turn the clock backwards.He helped me do just that. In fact our relationship feels like the break up never even happened. We have never been this happy or passionate, all thanks to mama anita. If you’re looking for a good spell caster look no further,you can contact her straight on (mama.anitaspellcraft@hotmail.com). website..http://kelvinlargemyself.wix.com/anita

I
have a question concerning my husband’s and my social security. I have
phoned our local SS office numerous times and we have paid at least
three visits there having received a ” different” answer almost every
time??!!

My husband was born 9/5/1948 and has not applied for Social Security yet. He plans to wait until 70 which will be 9/5/18.

I
was born 10/11/1951 and also plan to wait until 70. We were going to
do the file/suspend thing, but that is no longer an option.

My
question is: we were told to have my husband file and then restrict
his application so that I could claim off of him when I become FRA in
Oct. 2017.
My
plan is to receive half of his benefits until I turn 70. We were told
to do his application before April 2016 to meet the deadline. The
representatives at the office as well as the supervisor all said no,
don’t worry about it just come in when I am nearing 66 and do it then.
Other sources have said my husband should be filing and restricting now.

We
don’t want to miss out on this opportunity and know bureaucracies don’t
necessarily have the individual’s best interests at heart.

Jim Cox

Michael,
Has there been any more changes?
I’m currently 65 and will be 66 in September. Per telecom with the SSA, when the law takes effect on May 1, I will NOT be able to do a restricted Application when I reach 66. My wife is 73 and drawing SS benefits. I had hoped to draw spousal benefits until I reached age 70. Thanks for any input.

favour

I was really missing my wife when she left me for someone else. I was weak to take care of some situations and i let her slip my arms. I had to talk to my partner at the office who recently got her husband back. She told me to get in touch with John Patience who helped her get her husband back with a love spell. I was very sure of this because John has helped my partner get her husband back. So i called John Patience and told him i lost my lover and wadnted her back. He encouraged me and told me to be happy. He did his thing and told me my wife will be back in 45 hours. I waited for that time and my wife called me and told me that she has forgiven me and ready to take me back in her life. Since then, my wife and i have been enjoying our marriage with our lovely 4 kids. I am very grateful to John for what he has done for me. I’d advice you to ask him for help if you have any problem on your relationship and some other aspects of life. His email is blessings434@gmail.com 🙂

I am 68 my husband is 63. Can I file and suspend and my husband file for spousal benefits only ? The social security office says that he must be 66 before he can get spousal benefits , but I think that is wrong

Beachinchris

My simple brain is not processing this. I turned 63 last month and my wife will be 63 next month. Our plan is to wait until we’re 66 to file for SS. If anyone wants to explain the filing a Restricted App is encouraged or discouraged, I’ll say thanks in advance.

Jody Keeler

Michael –
I am now 66 and receiving my FRA SS pension. I was the higher earning spouse but had to take my SSDA 3 years early because of a chronic illness. My wife is 65 now – she’ll be 66 in January 2017 – and our plan was for her file for spousal under my current active SS payment at that time, receive 1/2 my benefit (as her spousal benefit) and then file for her full benefit at age 70. From my reading of your article, this is still possible. Am I reading it right?

Or, if I’m not, can she file for spousal before she reaches 66 a year from now but before the deadline?

Thanks for any help you can be on this.
Sincerely-
JodyKay

Nancy Flint-Budde

One area of confusion persists for me: If a client is turning 66 before 5/1/16 and files and suspends, is the younger spouse (age 62-65) elgible for the restricted benefit at their age 66 even if the spouse has suspended? In other words, the spouse doesnot need to be receiving a benefit when the younger spouse turns 66? Thanks!

Dr Elliott C

My love toward my husband hurts, since the day I took the risk and confronted one of his mistress, life was unbearable and it was clear he loves her more than me because he totally changed, and fought with me for confronting her instead of apologizing to me, he left the house for two weeks, froze my account and even served me with a divorce papers through his lawyer. I didn’t know it will get to that, I was disappointed and lost hope on trust, I thought I could have let them be, so I can save my marriage, I was at the verge of losing everything including our house. I needed to do something because I was almost running crazy, no chance to chill, I had only one option to find instant solution before it all disappears. I searched everywhere I could until I met Dr. Ogudugu on the internet with this email: (GREATOGUDUGU@GMAIL.COM), people really talked good about him and I was bold to ask him for one. Well, am glad he did at the end my husband came back on his knees, after the spell, begging for forgiveness. From what I have studied lately, my husband has indeed changed and become lovely. We never mentioned or even thought about divorcing again. Am so grateful for Dr. Ogudugu’s help.

Martha

I can find nothing that directly says this does not apply to me. I am a widow and at FRA started taking SS benefits from my late husband’s SS. I just retired and will be 70 in October, 2016. My plan was to switch to my SS at that time. I am hoping “restricted application” does not apply to widow benefits, and my plan is intact? Or, should I start taking my SS benefits May 1?

Elizabeth Greenberg

I am still confused. I am 63 and my husband is 68. Neither of us has begun taking SS. If my husband files and suspends, and then I file a restricted application, will I get my spousal benefit, when I am between the ages of 63-66? Question 2: Assuming I cannot get any spousal benefit until I am 66, by that time my husband will be 70, so then should I fiile a restricted application if my spousal benefit is more than the benefit on my record?

Diana Isid

I had a problem with my girlfriend six months ago,which lead us apart. When she broke up with me,I was no longer myself,I fill so empty inside.And i dont know what to do,I feel my life has come to an end because she was my first love.I went for counselling and advice online and i saw so many good comment about a spell caster on how he help them to solve their relationship and marriage issues.I email the spell caster on the email which was provided in the comments on (relationshipspell@gmail.com) and I told him my problem and I did what he asked me to briefly make the long story short, Before I knew what happened,after 48 hours,my girlfriend gave me a call and she came back to me and told me she was sorry about what happen and beg for forgiveness, I’m so grateful to these spell caster and i will not stop publishing his name on the internet just for the good work he did for me.If you need his help,you can email him at RELATIONSHIPSPELL@GMAIL.COM I will forever be grateful to him.He is the perfect solution to relationship and marriage issues.

Harry Cadwell

MARRIAGE RESTORED! My wife pack out of the house with my kids and said she was no longer interested in me anymore. She said all the abusive words and said am not a good husband because I wasn’t working, instead I was wasting her time, so i contacted this Strong spell caster DR HUTH a week ago after reading Miracles about his spell over the net, I consulted him for a love spell, crying not knowing what to do. He told me that he will cast a lover spell for me so my wife will come back to me. After 4 days of casting the spell, my wife call me apologizing and begging me to come home. The tender that i was waiting for was approved and he started telling me that am a good husband that I must forgive her for the bad things she had said. Am thanking DR HUTH for the Faith and Trust he showed me. if any body is out there passing through any relationship difficulties should kindly contact him via email: wondersspellhome123@outlook.com or call him +2349059897314 ;;;;;

Debra Dykes

I’m confused and need to make a decision right away. I’m unemployed, 61 years old and trying to decide whether to start receiving benefits when I turn 62 in July. I did work for 30 years. Can I file and suspend or anything else to increase my benefit by April 30th? My husband is still working and only 60 years old. Thank you for your help.

File-and-suspend and restricted application are only relevant at full retirement age, which is age 66. Since you are not age 66, nor close to it, none of these rules apply to you. (And since they are being phased out, they will not be available to you in 2021 or 2022 when you turn age 66, though depending on your situation by then, it may not have been relevant to you then, either.)

Bottom line – the April 30th deadline is completely irrelevant for you.
– Michael

jim schleicher

I started collecting social security in Aug 2015 I am 68 years old and I still work full time, does the 831 rule effect me in anyway.

No. You’ve already filed for and are getting benefits, so changing the rules regarding filing for benefits has no impact on you.
– Michael

Mshap

I’m 62 years old, unmarried. I haven’t starting taking benefits. My plan is to wait until I’m 66 before taking benefits, but if I have unexpected misfortune then I might take benefits before turning 66. Do any of the new rules affect me so that I should take some action or file any applications or forms now? Thanks.

David Akright

Michael, I understand that both spouses can not collect spousal benefit at the same time but what about each collecting spousal benefits during non-overlapping time periods. For instance, husband was receiving spousal benefits and recently turned 70 so now collecting his own benefit. Can his wife, who originally filed and suspended so her husband could collect spousal benefit, now file for spousal benefit prior to her turning 70 at the end of the year?

Brandy Teressa

My boyfriend left me a month ago and he was leaving with another woman who is 10 years older than him,i feel like my life is completely over. I read over the internet how a spell caster have help several people to get there love back. I have been distressed for the past one month and what i need is to get him back and live with me so i decided to give it a try so i contacted the spell caster called Dr MARVIN and explain my problems to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my boyfriend back and now my life is complete and i am throughly greatful to this man,his contact email MARVINLOVESPELL011@GMAIL.COM ,

Brandy Teressa

My boyfriend left me a month ago and he was leaving with another woman who is 10 years older than him,i feel like my life is completely over. I read over the internet how a spell caster have help several people to get there love back. I have been distressed for the past one month and what i need is to get him back and live with me so i decided to give it a try so i contacted the spell caster called Dr MARVIN and explain my problems to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my boyfriend back and now my life is complete and i am throughly greatful to this man,his contact email MARVINLOVESPELL011@GMAIL.COM

Helen

My Name is LIZZY SYLVIA, From United Kingdom. I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called DR PAPA THE GREAT ONE has just done for me this man has just brought back my lost EX husband to me with his great spell, I was married to this man called LIDYA we were together for a long time and we loved our self’s but when I was unable to give him a child for 2 years he left me and told me he can’t continue anymore then I was now looking for ways to get him back until a friend of mine told me about this man and gave his contact email, greatpapa78@gmail.com Tel: +2347034752871, then you won’t believe this when I contacted this man on my problems he prepared this spell cast and bring my lost husband back, and after a month I miss my month and go for a test and
the result stated am pregnant am happy today am a mother of a baby girl, thank you once again the great DR PAPA THE GREAT for what you have done for me, if you are out there passing through any of this problems listed below:
1) If you want your ex back.
(2) if you always have bad dreams.
(3) You want to be promoted in your office.
(4) You want women/men to run after you.
(5) If you want a child.
(6) You want to be rich.
(7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be
yours forever.
(8) If you need financial assistance.
(9) How you been scammed and you want to recover you lost money
– you can contact him via: email, greatpapa78@gmail.com
Tel: +2347034752871

William Drewe

My name is william i am from England, I was In a relationship with Sandra and we loved and cherished ourselves for 3 good years and everything was going on smoothly but on that day which I can never forget, February 14, 2016, a day we all call lovers day we both had misunderstanding on that day because I answered a call from a lady that is asking me out for a date but I refused, and she taught I was cheating on her,and she told me that our long time relationship has come to an end that she can’t bear the pain anymore and that she is fed up with me and I begged her because I love her so much but she refused me I was so frustrated and I felt the world has come to an end for me but my friend told me about a spell caster that helped her sister out in getting her relationship back, a good job and favor in any of her endeavor but at first I was scared but I have to give this Spellcaster a trial because I love Sandra very much and I am not willing to loose her to any man, so I ordered returning my love,with the help of this great spell caster that made me a happy man again to say it all my wife who left me came back to me with much love and a caring heart…i am testifying to this great spell caster odinspelltemple@gmail.com if you need his help, to help get your ex back you can kindly email him on (odinspelltemple@gmail.com)

Sarah Morgan

“I am Sarah from Australia. I want to thank God almighty and Dr Mighty One for bringing so much joy to my life. Since i was divorced i have been on the internet dating site looking for a soul mate. I met one jonny mark who pretended he loved me so much little did i know that he was a scammer, he keeps on asking me to send him money all the time and in total i sent him $7500 till finally he opened up and told me he was a scammer. I was very heart broken because i have loved him so much. I couldn’t just allow my money go like that so i came to the internet to search for a spell caster to help me get back my money and i came across Dr. Mighty One’s post and i saw a lot of comment on the post of people thanking him for all he has done for them…with faith i decided to give him a try and i emailed him directly on drmightyonespelltempleonline@gmail.com. i explained all my problems to him and begged him to help me bring my money back, he said i shouldn’t bother anymore that he is gonna help me get back my money. few days after we talked, i was so surprised to get a email from the scammer who scammed me $7500 telling me to send my account so that he could transfer my money back to me, i sent him the account and he immediately sent me back my money… I was so surprised and shocked, i am so happy i got back my money, i was beginning to go bankrupt but all thanks to God almighty for sending Dr. Mighty to help me.”

“I am Sarah from Australia. I want to thank God almighty and Dr Mighty One for bringing so much joy to my life. Since i was divorced i have been on the internet dating site looking for a soul mate. I met one jonny mark who pretended he loved me so much little did i know that he was a scammer, he keeps on asking me to send him money all the time and in total i sent him $7500 till finally he opened up and told me he was a scammer. I was very heart broken because i have loved him so much. I couldn’t just allow my money go like that so i came to the internet to search for a spell caster to help me get back my money and i came across Dr. Mighty One’s post and i saw a lot of comment on the post of people thanking him for all he has done for them…with faith i decided to give him a try and i emailed him directly on drmightyonespelltempleonline@gmail.com. i explained all my problems to him and begged him to help me bring my money back, he said i shouldn’t bother anymore that he is gonna help me get back my money. few days after we talked, i was so surprised to get a email from the scammer who scammed me $7500 telling me to send my account so that he could transfer my money back to me, i sent him the account and he immediately sent me back my money… I was so surprised and shocked, i am so happy i got back my money, i was beginning to go bankrupt but all thanks to God almighty for sending Dr. Mighty to help me.”

“I am Sarah from Australia. I want to thank God almighty and Dr Mighty One for bringing so much joy to my life. Since i was divorced i have been on the internet dating site looking for a soul mate. I met one jonny mark who pretended he loved me so much little did i know that he was a scammer, he keeps on asking me to send him money all the time and in total i sent him $7500 till finally he opened up and told me he was a scammer. I was very heart broken because i have loved him so much. I couldn’t just allow my money go like that so i came to the internet to search for a spell caster to help me get back my money and i came across Dr. Mighty One’s post and i saw a lot of comment on the post of people thanking him for all he has done for them…with faith i decided to give him a try and i emailed him directly on drmightyonespelltempleonline@gmail.com. i explained all my problems to him and begged him to help me bring my money back, he said i shouldn’t bother anymore that he is gonna help me get back my money. few days after we talked, i was so surprised to get a email from the scammer who scammed me $7500 telling me to send my account so that he could transfer my money back to me, i sent him the account and he immediately sent me back my money… I was so surprised and shocked, i am so happy i got back my money, i was beginning to go bankrupt but all thanks to God almighty for sending Dr. Mighty to help me.”

“I am Sarah from Australia. I want to thank God almighty and Dr Mighty One for bringing so much joy to my life. Since i was divorced i have been on the internet dating site looking for a soul mate. I met one jonny mark who pretended he loved me so much little did i know that he was a scammer, he keeps on asking me to send him money all the time and in total i sent him $7500 till finally he opened up and told me he was a scammer. I was very heart broken because i have loved him so much. I couldn’t just allow my money go like that so i came to the internet to search for a spell caster to help me get back my money and i came across Dr. Mighty One’s post and i saw a lot of comment on the post of people thanking him for all he has done for them…with faith i decided to give him a try and i emailed him directly on drmightyonespelltempleonline@gmail.com. i explained all my problems to him and begged him to help me bring my money back, he said i shouldn’t bother anymore that he is gonna help me get back my money. few days after we talked, i was so surprised to get a email from the scammer who scammed me $7500 telling me to send my account so that he could transfer my money back to me, i sent him the account and he immediately sent me back my money… I was so surprised and shocked, i am so happy i got back my money, i was beginning to go bankrupt but all thanks to God almighty for sending Dr. Mighty to help me.”

“I am Sarah from Australia. I want to thank God almighty and Dr Mighty One for bringing so much joy to my life. Since i was divorced i have been on the internet dating site looking for a soul mate. I met one jonny mark who pretended he loved me so much little did i know that he was a scammer, he keeps on asking me to send him money all the time and in total i sent him $7500 till finally he opened up and told me he was a scammer. I was very heart broken because i have loved him so much. I couldn’t just allow my money go like that so i came to the internet to search for a spell caster to help me get back my money and i came across Dr. Mighty One’s post and i saw a lot of comment on the post of people thanking him for all he has done for them…with faith i decided to give him a try and i emailed him directly on drmightyonespelltempleonline@gmail.com. i explained all my problems to him and begged him to help me bring my money back, he said i shouldn’t bother anymore that he is gonna help me get back my money. few days after we talked, i was so surprised to get a email from the scammer who scammed me $7500 telling me to send my account so that he could transfer my money back to me, i sent him the account and he immediately sent me back my money… I was so surprised and shocked, i am so happy i got back my money, i was beginning to go bankrupt but all thanks to God almighty for sending Dr. Mighty to help me.”

“I am Sarah from Australia. I want to thank God almighty and Dr Mighty One for bringing so much joy to my life. Since i was divorced i have been on the internet dating site looking for a soul mate. I met one jonny mark who pretended he loved me so much little did i know that he was a scammer, he keeps on asking me to send him money all the time and in total i sent him $7500 till finally he opened up and told me he was a scammer. I was very heart broken because i have loved him so much. I couldn’t just allow my money go like that so i came to the internet to search for a spell caster to help me get back my money and i came across Dr. Mighty One’s post and i saw a lot of comment on the post of people thanking him for all he has done for them…with faith i decided to give him a try and i emailed him directly on drmightyonespelltempleonline@gmail.com. i explained all my problems to him and begged him to help me bring my money back, he said i shouldn’t bother anymore that he is gonna help me get back my money. few days after we talked, i was so surprised to get a email from the scammer who scammed me $7500 telling me to send my account so that he could transfer my money back to me, i sent him the account and he immediately sent me back my money… I was so surprised and shocked, i am so happy i got back my money, i was beginning to go bankrupt but all thanks to God almighty for sending Dr. Mighty to help me.”

Please everyone need to read this
Some time things you don’t believe can just happen.
My name is Mrs grace tessy from U.S.A am 45years old i got married
at the age of 26 i have only 2 children and i was living happily .After
three
year of my marriage my husband behavior became so strange and i don’t
really understand what was going on, he packed out of the house to another
woman i love him so much that i never dream of losing him, i try my
possible best to make sure that my husband get back to me but all to no
avail i cry and i cry seeking for help i discussed it with my best friend
and she promise to help me of a SPIRITUAL SPELL CASTER called Dr Abu,he
is a very great man and a real man that can be trusted and there is nothing
concerning love issues he cannot do that is why they call him the great
doctor. I contacted his email address atprophetabu1@gmail.com And i told him everything that
happen all he told me is that i should not worry that all my problems will
be solved immediately. He told me what to do to get my husband back and i
did, he said after 3 days my husband will come back to me and start
begging, it really happen i was very surprise and very, very happy our
relationship is very tight and we both live happily again.
So my friends if you have any issues and you need the help of a real spell
caster please try to contact this same email address and remain blessprophetabu1@gmail.com

i want to thank ULOKO for bringing back my ex husband, we broke up for more than 4 YEARS and he told me that he never want to see me in his life again. i love him so much to the extend that i could not do any thing again, i was confused and depress due to the love i had for him.i did everything i could do to have him come back to me but all went in vain. so i decided to contact a spell caster, i did not believe in spell casting i just want to try it may be it would work out for me. i contacted ULOKO for help, he told me that he have to cast a love spell on him, i told him to start it. after 4 days my husband called me and started to apologize for leaving me and also he told me that he still love me. i was very happy and i thank ULOKO for helping me get back my ex husband back to my LIFE. His spell is the the greatest all over the world, it was the love spell he cast on my ex that make him come back to me. all you ladies who want their ex husband back i want you to contact ULOKO at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..you can contact him via email ulokolovespell@gmail.com OR call him{+2347035961041}..

Lord Ogumagala

Authentic Voodoo Lord/Spell Caster at your service!
Are you looking for a Voodoo spell caster to bring back your ex wife/ husband or a lover that has left you for a very long time? My Voodoo/Spells are the sole magic to provide you with fast and strong results. If you intend to bring back your loved ones, I guarantee to cast the most powerful Voodoo spell to make you happy. As I only accept one client per week, don’t waste your time! E-mail me now to request a free quote and an authentic review of your situation. I work with Voodoo and all my rituals are specifically adapted to your needs. If you want help from a professional Voodoo spell caster, contact me via email lordogumagalaspellhome@gmail.com to get the successful outcome you want With me, you get the results you pay for. My famous Voodoo spells are very powerful and work fast. I put my powers at your service to grant your dreams in just a few days. My clients are amazed by the results I bring, especially when they asked help from unsuccessful casters before. I have helped thousands of persons in over 20 years, so why not YOU, TODAY?